multitabling six-max question

[Wynton]

I have a quick question for those of you who multitable six-max tables: do you still get genuine enjoyment out of playing, or has it become little more than a mechanical grind?

I ask because I've generally single-tabled six-max, for a few reasons: (1) I want to improve my reading skills; (2) my monitors aren't large enough to avoid significant overlap, even of just 2 tables; and (3) I assumed multitabling wouldn't be that much fun.

But I've also realized recently that single-tabling has its own set of frustrations. It simply takes forever to ride out the natural fluctations playing only one table at a time (particularly if you are juggling many other commitments). And building a genuinely adequate BR for the next level at six-max seems to take forever while single-tabling.

Before I go ahead and purchase another monitor - which I think is necessary for me to multitable with any success - can you multitablers just tell me whether you truly find that enjoyable? Or has it become solely about the money, at this point?

[krishanleong]

I still enjoy sitting down to play.

Krishan

[RunDownHouse]

I generally 2- or 3-table, and its still enjoyable. When I'm not burned out. And when I'm winning.

[xCEO]

I usually 2 or 3 table, in that case I'm still able to 'enjoy' the game and notice what players are doing and on the other hand it's much less boring than playing on one table.

But it's ofcourse different for everyone.

[Poldi]

Its still fun to play. Single-tabling would be boring to me, mulitabling is not.

[PTjvs]

I can't stand single tabling anymore. I 3table 6max or 4 table full ring.

jvs

[Surfbullet]

[ QUOTE ]
I still enjoy sitting down to play.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. I spent a good amount of time 6-8 tabling, but i've spent the past 2 weeks 2-3 tabling in an effort to sharpen my game, and move up. I've found that my play didn't change all that much, so I'll likely be back to 4-6 tabling again later this week.

It's definitely still fun. I have to take more frequent breaks when i'm playing lots of tables, though.

Surf

[tolbiny]

multitabling with overlap sucks a lot of ass. I've been 3 tabling over a 1024/760 res for months or something (and 4 tabling over two of those screens) - but its still way more fun. two tabling with overlap isn't that bad at all.

[RiverTheNuts]

I 4 table 6 max 1/2 when I play...

I don't really enjoy poker online anymore, which is a problem. However, I have about a thousand bucks on the credit card, so I am playing until I pay it off, then I might take what I have left of the bankroll and reassess if I want to play hold em online anymore.

I enjoy Big 2, PLO8, and even NL hold em tourneys and live game poker. But grinding limit poker gets aggrivating very quickly to me.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
multitabling with overlap sucks a lot of ass. I've been 3 tabling over a 1024/760 res for months or something (and 4 tabling over two of those screens) - but its still way more fun. two tabling with overlap isn't that bad at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why people handicap themselves while playing poker. Why haven't you bought a moniter that supports 1600x1200? They cost less than $200. I have 2 I don't even use any more.

Krishan

[PartyFish]

I 3 or 4 table 3/6. In the last couple of weeks I've decided that I really don't enjoy it at all. It's purely for income at this point.

[IGMorton]

even if you only 2 table, you will be glad you have the screen real estate. i typically 2 or 3 table on a 1200x1600 monitor, which allows me to keep the lobby windows open so i can keep an eye on potentially lucrative tables. this alone will pay for your new monitor in a matter of a few weeks. also, getting a good quality unit that's easy on the eyes will allow you to enjoy the game more with less fatigue. the Samsung 204T i picked up a few months ago is a top notch perform at a relatively low price point.

[w_alloy]

I have never played 1 table, and only played 2 tables my ever first week of playing. I lose interest and get bored so quickly. I play better doing 3+ tables because I always have something to do. I have never found it hectic or confusing at all. Maybe this is because of a slight case od ADD and years of chaotic videogames?

As to enjoynig playing, I havent since I first began. But I never find it boring or mechanical. I still feel like a complete beginner after over 100k hands total and 60k at 6 max. I still learn every session, even playing 4-6 tables. I think about every hand unless i am really tired or involved in lots of pots. I still get nervous and sweat while playing.

[Rubeskies]

I 5-table 10/20 6-max.

More tables=more action=more gamboooooooooooooooooooool!!!!11!!1!!1=more fun

[sthief09]

8-tablign sucks and I hate it but it makes me more money. I go down and terrorize 3/6 sometimes and play some stud or omaha to break it up

[mex78753]

I 3 - 6 table 6 max on stars and I've got to say that I dont find it that enjoyable. It seems to be solely about the money. I do play nl and trnys every now and again to prevent me from getting too burned out. That helps alot.

[Wynton]

This is actually somewhat depressing. A decent percentage of those who have replied apparently don't enjoy poker when multitabling.

[RunDownHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
A decent percentage of those who have replied apparently don't enjoy poker when multitabling.

[/ QUOTE ]
To be fair, you should have asked them if they would enjoy it more, less, or the same when single-tabling. When I hate poker, I hate it regardless of the number of tables.

Just buy a pretty new monitor and tell yourself its for playing Civ 4, but it happens to have 1600x1200 as well.

[mex78753]

[ QUOTE ]
This is actually somewhat depressing. A decent percentage of those who have replied apparently don't enjoy poker when multitabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you'll take sollace in that fact that I'm the type of person that gets very bored easily.

[tolbiny]

I finally did break down and bought a new setup a few days ago, just waiting to get a [censored] deal so i can actually play on party again.

Yeah, it was dumb of me to be a multitabling pro on a 15" laptop for 8 months, but i have been cheap my whole life, and its hard to break the habit.

Besides, maybe now my winrate will skyrocket /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
I generally 2- or 3-table, and its still enjoyable. When I'm not burned out. And when I'm winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]


Yeah, it was dumb of me to be a multitabling pro on a 15" laptop for 8 months, but i have been cheap my whole life, and its hard to break the habit.


[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the habit. When I go out for lunch I feel bad not getting McDonalds because McD is so cheap. But being cheap about poker is insane because spending money makes you more money. People who wouldn't fork over for a new moniter, playerview, porkeace, pokertracker, and other stuff blows my mind. It pays for itself several times over. You just can't afford to be cheap. It's too expensive.

Krishan

[kiddo]

Playing poker live with people I dont know is about the most boring thing I can imagine. It doesnt matter if its a lot of money or not. It just is so extremly slow.

Playing full tables online is really boring. No matter if its one or many. A bit funnier if it is at high limits, but still booooring.

Playing 1 table 6max at a level I played a lot at before is boring.

Playing many tables at levels I played a lot at before is pretty boring, but not as boring as playing 1 table.

Playing at a level I am not used to (for me its 30/60 and up) is fun. If its really high (for me) like 40/80 I can play 1 table. If its just a little higher then my normal 10/20 (lets say 20/40) I need 2 tables...

When u play at a level u are comfortable with its boring. U have to be pretty stupid to not know pretty much excatly how to play each hand. (Of course there are a lot of marginal hands but they are just that: marginal. And of course there are hands u play a in a certain way that is wrong, but u will never know this when u play, only off-table).

To make money at poker u have to play at a limit u are comfortable with. That means playing against players that are worse then u and at a limit where they cant scare u with their money.

If u dont find poker boring a lot of the time u are not intelligent enough to be a really good pokerplayer.

Most good pokerplayer are pretty intelligent and could have done something else much more interesting then playing poker online 3-4 hours/day. Its all about money and what u can do when u dont play poker.

[imported_CaseClosed326]

I like the challenge of playing 4 tables at once. It makes things more interesting. It is a shame that I suck at it. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
If u dont find poker boring a lot of the time u are not intelligent enough to be a really good pokerplayer.


[/ QUOTE ]

i totally disagree. i am fairly intelligent by all measures and i always have fun playing poker. i enjoy playing quater chips with my friends. i enjoy playing with the selfproclaimed pros in vegas. i enjoy spewing at low stakes tables on party. i enjoy trying to play my best at mid and higher limits.

its something about being a gambling addict.

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
multitabling with overlap sucks a lot of ass. I've been 3 tabling over a 1024/760 res for months or something (and 4 tabling over two of those screens) - but its still way more fun. two tabling with overlap isn't that bad at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why people handicap themselves while playing poker. Why haven't you bought a moniter that supports 1600x1200? They cost less than $200. I have 2 I don't even use any more.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been 4-5 tabling 5-10 (6 max) on 1024 x 786 with ridiculous overlap. I mean it's a 15" laptop.

I sort of have not know anything else and I am used to it after many months. Krishan, your post makes me wonder if this is a big oversight on my part. I also figured a fancy resolution monitor would be expensive, not under $200. Ugh, thoughts?

I don't like waiting on other players to decide, but I don't want the tables beeping and flashing at me constantly. My solution is the high-speed 6-max tables on PokerStars. Each table runs through about 100 hands/hr, so I can two-table relatively comfortably and still get in 200 hands/hr (equivalent to four-tabling full ring in my experience). I make an effort to think about each decision carefully, though, because I can easily slip into multitabling autopilot mode, which is what burns me out. I enjoy the thinking and getting as much experience as possible, but I don't want it to turn into a video game.

I have dual monitors, so I put one table on each screen, or sometimes both on one, but there is slight overlap. They are LCD screens, and I'm stuck at 1280x1024.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
multitabling with overlap sucks a lot of ass. I've been 3 tabling over a 1024/760 res for months or something (and 4 tabling over two of those screens) - but its still way more fun. two tabling with overlap isn't that bad at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why people handicap themselves while playing poker. Why haven't you bought a moniter that supports 1600x1200? They cost less than $200. I have 2 I don't even use any more.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been 4-5 tabling 5-10 (6 max) on 1024 x 786 with ridiculous overlap. I mean it's a 15" laptop.

I sort of have not know anything else and I am used to it after many months. Krishan, your post makes me wonder if this is a big oversight on my part. I also figured a fancy resolution monitor would be expensive, not under $200. Ugh, thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huge oversight. You will see the value once you go buy one. Sunday circulars advertise a crt monitor than handled 1600x1200 every week. Check best buy, staples, office depot. Both of mine cost 150 but 200 is pretty standard. I used them for a year and a half but bought a 2001FP recently.

Krishan

[yanicehand]

I used to 4-6 table 6max and get a lot of enjoyment out of it. I was earning 32% rakeback on the skins and making a very large sum every month just from rakeback. I was rarely concerned with improving my game or moving up in levels based on profit from the tables, as my rakeback would ensure several thousand a month.

Now that the party's over, I've realized that my 4-6 tabling isn't 1/2 the fun it used to be, but not for most of the reasons expressed here. The added frustration of trying to have multiple sites open, trying to select decent games, etc, has made it more of a hassle than anything. I've resorted to 3 tabling again, like i did to build my initial roll before rakeback took over my life.

You hear it a million times so it becomes cliche, but play what you're comfortable with. Try it out and see what happens. There's no harm in it, because the 1600x1200 monitor you use will be well worth it even without poker. I dual monitor with a samsung lcd and a laptop on a stand and it really just makes things clear, presentable, and efficient - 4 tables on one screen, 2p2 on the other, or homework on one and AIM/2p2 on the other. It's a great way to multitask in general.

I love this quote from p. 288 of King Yao's book:

"There are many possible distractions playing online poker that you do not have in a brick-and-mortar poker room, including surfing online, writing and reading email, watching television, and reading a book. (If you are playing online poker as you read this, STOP. Either play the game or read the book. Don't do both at the same time!)"

I was playing online when I first read this and cracked up.

I've since joined the school that multitasking is bad for being a good poker player and have quit doing it mostly.

[tolbiny]

McD's? hell no- i make two sandwiches and grab an apple for lunch /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

I PT and player view (well poker ace) i have paid for, cause there just aren't any alternatives- but its so much harder to justify the expense when you are getting by fine. Anyway, i did splurge and got a dell 2100 with my comp, along with a larger hard drive and 2 gigs of ram, so i should be set for a few months untill i decide to 6-8 table and have to buy another 2100.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
multitabling with overlap sucks a lot of ass. I've been 3 tabling over a 1024/760 res for months or something (and 4 tabling over two of those screens) - but its still way more fun. two tabling with overlap isn't that bad at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why people handicap themselves while playing poker. Why haven't you bought a moniter that supports 1600x1200? They cost less than $200. I have 2 I don't even use any more.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been 4-5 tabling 5-10 (6 max) on 1024 x 786 with ridiculous overlap. I mean it's a 15" laptop.

I sort of have not know anything else and I am used to it after many months. Krishan, your post makes me wonder if this is a big oversight on my part. I also figured a fancy resolution monitor would be expensive, not under $200. Ugh, thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can find 19" CRT's that do much better than 1600x1200 for right at $150

If you want a 21" Trinitron (you do) then call around for a used one. Sometimes you can find them for $100. At that point if they go bad you toss it in the can and go get another 12. :P

[Big Bend]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If u dont find poker boring a lot of the time u are not intelligent enough to be a really good pokerplayer.


[/ QUOTE ]

i totally disagree. i am fairly intelligent by all measures and i always have fun playing poker. i enjoy playing quater chips with my friends. i enjoy playing with the selfproclaimed pros in vegas. i enjoy spewing at low stakes tables on party. i enjoy trying to play my best at mid and higher limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that poker played properly is very boring alot of times. An emotionless data entry type job. Yes there are brief stretches where fun things happen but by and large its mostly a grind after awhile. The trick is to find ways to entertain yourself while doing all that folding and still maintain an A game. The slow stretches in live play are increasingly dull for me these days. Boring & hard to maintain intense focus.

Online I do play 2-3 6-max tables at a time and enjoy it. 200 hands per hour is nice. I play on a notebook with screen 1200x1024 and there is some overlap but I don't care.

TTFN.. BB

[me454555]

I'm currently working out of a single room in a house w/out room for a monitor. It sux but i'd buy that monitor in a heartbeat if I had a place to put it

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes there are brief stretches where fun things happen but by and large its mostly a grind after awhile. The trick is to find ways to entertain yourself while doing all that folding and still maintain an A game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I think this is a big problem for most that have played poker daily for a living over a couple of years.

To get this straight: I enjoy thinking about poker problems. And I love to play poker against good players that are at my own level of thinking or higher. But since I do it for a living this is excatly what I cant do. I have to play people worse then me. If I sit down and find they are good I have 2 options: 1) Enjoy myself and make no money (that is: I dont play for a living anymore) or 2) Leave table.

How it can be fun to play poker with 2 guys seeing 50% of all flops and often going to showgdown is beyond me. Its like playing tennis with your wife. Enjoyable at moments (when she does something funny or good) but not something you like to do 3 hours/day.

[kiddo]

If u have played poker 3-4 hours/day for more then a year against people worse then you and still think its fun, well, you are a very lucky guy.

If I want to enjoy myself I normally play a NL HU tourney. Then I have to think poker.

[Victor]

i totally see where you are coming from. i have played for a living for 8monthes thru many ups and downs. i always enjoyed it. i am a gambler tho. there is no doubt. i am also a drug addict so whe i combine the two poker is ver yfun. i can now think like my opponents. fun game. i love it.

btw. above all, the most fun i had playin poker was in the hula matches.

[MrBig30]

[ QUOTE ]

I've been 4-5 tabling 5-10 (6 max) on 1024 x 786 with ridiculous overlap. I mean it's a 15" laptop.

I sort of have not know anything else and I am used to it after many months. Krishan, your post makes me wonder if this is a big oversight on my part. I also figured a fancy resolution monitor would be expensive, not under $200. Ugh, thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please. $200 is 20 big bets at 5/10. Play 2 hours extra at 2 bb/100 and it is yours. Just get it.

I bought the 19" dell monitor and realized too late it didnt have the resolution for multitabling without overlap. So I bought the 2001 (20") too a year ago. I love having two big monitors, I payed perhaps 1000$ for them and have never regretted it.
I usually just 2-3 table but its very nice to have some extra room for PT and for checking handhistories and for notes. Trying hard not to use the extra space for surfing/watching movies. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[surfdoc]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm currently working out of a single room in a house w/out room for a monitor. It sux but i'd buy that monitor in a heartbeat if I had a place to put it

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you realized the value that krishan is talking about when you came over and played at my pad with good dual monitor setup (I run 2 2001fps). I think that having no physical space for a proper monitor is the only real excuse for not having 1600X1200 resolution and even that is borderline as a laptop can get it done. Anyone capable of beating a game as high as 3/6 will likely have this monitor pay for itself in 4-6 weeks. Mistakes made from overlap and not being able to effectively multitable are very costly and more costly than most people realize.

As far as the OP question, I really enjoy playing but get bored by lack of stimulation if I 1 table even if playing higher. It just feels like whoever runs good gets the money.

[Victor]

the relaxiotion effect of having porn in the backround likeyly adds to your wr in some capacity.

[2+2 wannabe]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm currently working out of a single room in a house w/out room for a monitor. It sux but i'd buy that monitor in a heartbeat if I had a place to put it

[/ QUOTE ]

how can you not have room for a computer monitor?

[mperich]

Its all about the money for me baby! Altho, I do enjoy it sometimes when Im playing higher stakes than I usually do, or more tables. Basically things that challenge me, as opposed to playing 4k hands 6tabling. I usually don't play more than 6 tables, and the move from 4->6 tables has become pretty much complete for me now, so I dont get to be excited very often anymore.

-Mike

[w_alloy]

[ QUOTE ]

How it can be fun to play poker with 2 guys seeing 50% of all flops and often going to showgdown is beyond me. Its like playing tennis with your wife. Enjoyable at moments (when she does something funny or good) but not something you like to do 3 hours/day.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. I am ultra competitive and will not play sports with anyone significantly worse than me. However, the random nature of poker and the tell-less-ness of playing online make your edge similiar to that of playing sports with someone barely worse than you. Even against fish, if you are playing optimally, you get put in so so many marginal situations. It is easy to throw up your arms and say these situations dont matter. But trying to pick up on betting patterns, timing tells (which I think is underrated expecially against the clueless), and 2nd/3rd level thinking can sway 0-.5 BB +/-ev decisions frequently. These things would take so so long to become "automatic" and still be as good as someone completely engaged, especially playing 4+ tables of SH. Squeezing out that extra .5BB for the vast majority of 2+2ers is challenging. Being ultra competitive, anything that is challenging and can win me money is at least engaging.

[kahntrutahn]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing poker live with people I dont know is about the most boring thing I can imagine. It doesnt matter if its a lot of money or not. It just is so extremly slow.

Playing full tables online is really boring. No matter if its one or many. A bit funnier if it is at high limits, but still booooring.

Playing 1 table 6max at a level I played a lot at before is boring.

Playing many tables at levels I played a lot at before is pretty boring, but not as boring as playing 1 table.

Playing at a level I am not used to (for me its 15/30and up) is fun. If its really high (for me) like 30/60 I can play 1 table. If its just a little higher then my normal 10/20 (lets say 20/40) I need 2 tables...

When u play at a level u are comfortable with its boring. U have to be pretty stupid to not know pretty much excatly how to play each hand. (Of course there are a lot of marginal hands but they are just that: marginal. And of course there are hands u play a in a certain way that is wrong, but u will never know this when u play, only off-table).

To make money at poker u have to play at a limit u are comfortable with. That means playing against players that are worse then u and at a limit where they cant scare u with their money.

If u dont find poker boring a lot of the time u are not intelligent enough to be a really good pokerplayer.

Most good pokerplayer are pretty intelligent and could have done something else much more interesting then playing poker online 3-4 hours/day. Its all about money and what u can do when u dont play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

[tansoku]

[ QUOTE ]
Its like playing tennis with your wife. Enjoyable at moments (when she does something funny or good) but not something you like to do 3 hours/day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except you usually get laid by putting up with the tennis...

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
When u play at a level u are comfortable with its boring. U have to be pretty stupid to not know pretty much excatly how to play each hand. (Of course there are a lot of marginal hands but they are just that: marginal. And of course there are hands u play a in a certain way that is wrong, but u will never know this when u play, only off-table).

To make money at poker u have to play at a limit u are comfortable with. That means playing against players that are worse then u and at a limit where they cant scare u with their money.

If u dont find poker boring a lot of the time u are not intelligent enough to be a really good pokerplayer.


[/ QUOTE ]

While I find it painful that you can't find the time to type the word "you" . . . u have a point. I think there's a reason that when all of the uber-pros are sitting in the super-high-limit games that during the game there's about 20 prop bets flying around at any one time.

On the other hand, I think that most folks at our level aren't doing everything we can to become better players. At some point one reaches a threshold where it's actual damn (boring) WORK to improve. Yeah, I've learned how to isolate maniacs, read when my opponent is trying to see a showdown cheap with A-high/induce a bluff out of my broken draw, and, of course, value-bet the fish.

But when I'm at a table with a bunch of competent 38/20 players (i.e., too loose but not dramatically so), how in the hell do I squeeze out more than a 1BB/100 advantage? And if I come up with a plan, how in the hell is it possible for me to gather sufficient empirical evidence to know whether it's working or not?

I've gone off on a tangent to some degree, but you get the gist -- at some point around the 15/30 or 20/40 level, it becomes hard work to figure out how to stay a 3BB/100 winner, and it's work that can't be easily validated. And when it's difficult to "move up" . . . well, that's when the risk of boredom sets in.

Okay, enough meandering.