multiple tables gets addicting

[rjc199]

I started playing 3 tonight on party and when 2 of the tables died because a bunch of people left (system crash?) I was knocked down to only 1 table.

It was like playing in a timewarp the game was so slow.

The only negative about playing 3 tables is it is impossible to get a read on anybody because you can't watch much of each table.

[DrSavage]

[ QUOTE ]
The only negative about playing 3 tables is it is impossible to get a read on anybody because you can't watch much of each table

[/ QUOTE ]

One way to solve it is to use PocketStat or PockerTracker to do your reads for you.

[slavic]

As an added bonus my session variance has gone down at Party. I'm normally killing one table, being killed on another and the Third table is the nightly profit. When the stars set up right it turns into a huge moneymaker, and I have yet to have a heavy setback.

[Lunamondo]

The problem with playing just one full ring game table is that one plays just some 15 hands per 60 hands, or per hour. The problem with two or more tables is that the win amount might drop - mostly - one small bet per table per 60 hands - verified to me by the turbo that plays only averages. What this all means that at high limit games or at any games where one rates to win just one small bet per 60 hands, or per hour, it's risky, while at good low limit games the worse that can happen if one is good and experienced is that one makes no more money playing two tables (doesn't mean one won't make more money playing three tables). One should consider one's win rate and the likelyhood of missing one small bet per 60 hands (on any of the two tables one is playing at), to get a picture about the likelyhood it being worth it.

[warlockjd]

I enjoy playing multiple tables myself.

I would caution to drop down to 2 tables when you get up to 15/30 though. Not doing so was very costly for me, and I think lack of reads played a major part in it.