Playing more than one tourney at a time

[Bigwig]

I'm thinking of entering two tourney's at a time on pokerstars. With their time bank, it seems like it's very possible. I was thinking of staggering the starts a half hour apart to avoid being short-handed in both games at once, since the hands start to move so fast. Any suggestions? Do you think this is a good idea? Or is it too much?

[La Brujita]

I often play two or three at once. It is not hard once you get used to it. It is made much easier by having a screen that fits two screens at the same time. If I play three I stagger, with two I don't feel the need.

Use the advance boxes and you should be fine. One caveat, if you are not a very good/winning player, it may be better to play one at a time and concentrate on that game. If you are, then good luck!

[poker-penguin]

It's definately possible to play two. IF you're a solid player. I like to stagger the starts, just so I keep it straight in my mind which table is which (if the 5 seat's a maniac-fish in one game and a rock in the other, it's important not to mix them up).

[Tosh]

Maybe I'm over doing it but I play 4 SNGs on Party and normally another one on Stars or Intercasino.

[jaydoggie]

i usually play one until its 3-4 handed. then i sign up for another. then by the time my 1st one is over, the 2nd is short handed. i concentrate more on the short handed game, and it helps me not make "boredom calls" on the other while its still a full table.

[aucu]

I always play two tables at a time, but one is a cash game that I can sit out when the SNG gets down to the end.

[GoSox]

I used to play 3 or 4, but now I usually limit it to 2 on Party, sometimes I'll add a third Stars because they are so slow. I find my ROI goes up playing only 2 because I can track the other players better. Sometimes I will play a higher/lower limit combination and focus more on the higher limit.

The worst scenario I found is only playing one table. I find that I eventually give into the boredom and start playing hands I shouldn't. With 2 tables I'm involved in enough hands to stay interested.

[Bigwig]

Thanks for the responses. I started playing two, and didn't bother staggering them, since they tend to stagger themselves after ending at different points over the night. I'm keeping my same ROI, so that's good. My hourly rate is around $17.50 on $20+2 tables, so I guess that's solid. Makes me wonder if I could keep it up on three tables at $50+5 tables. Heh. That would net me $60,000/yr. at 20 hours per week. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[talkinghead]

I'm a strict one table man myself for these reasons below, last year i cleared 60K (but i did play 30hrs/wk not 20)

The following was posted on rival forum the other day...

The multiple table player(MTP) believes that more tables at once, means
more hands/hr greater overall win rate, even if the win rate at individual
tables will be slightly reduced.

There are a lot of people who play multiple tables and I don't doubt that
their win rate is indeed higher. I don't myself for the reason that unless
play is concentrated on one table your game isn't going anywhere it's
standing in the same place.

This might be adequate for someone who plays at a certain low limit, happy
with their win rate and have no ambitions to move on to bigger and better
things, playing the best poker they can.

There may be some MTP's that simply don't have a very large concentration
span, they need the action that three or more tables gives them to stay
focused, at a single table they'd simply get bored waiting for hands .
Concentration and patience though, like all things in life needs working
on to get and maintain. MTP's who lack these qualities arn't going to get
themselves out of this hole anytime soon with six tables at once to get
those big pairs more often.

You miss so much not concentrating your play to a single table, especially
in terms of the psychological aspects of the game, MTP's can't get into 27
players head at the same time. When desicions creep up on you you need to
weigh many things into consideration, not just the cards. That's the
sacrifice that MTP's make and for many, they're happy with that, that's
the little they give up to get a bigger overall win rate.

It's these key desicions though that are critical at the higher limits and
you need as much practice making them as possible, more hands per hour
mean more of such desicions will crop up, however, MTP are kidding
themselves if they believe that they are correctly evaluating them as well
as they could.

If you're a MTP think what you want from poker, to be the best player you
can, to play winning poker at high limits/ buy-in tournaments. If so,
think about switching to one table (make sure it's a good one) and maybe
even a slightly higher limit.

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a strict one table man myself for these reasons below, last year i cleared 60K (but i did play 30hrs/wk not 20)

The following was posted on rival forum the other day...

The multiple table player(MTP) believes that more tables at once, means
more hands/hr greater overall win rate, even if the win rate at individual
tables will be slightly reduced.

There are a lot of people who play multiple tables and I don't doubt that
their win rate is indeed higher. I don't myself for the reason that unless
play is concentrated on one table your game isn't going anywhere it's
standing in the same place.

This might be adequate for someone who plays at a certain low limit, happy
with their win rate and have no ambitions to move on to bigger and better
things, playing the best poker they can.

There may be some MTP's that simply don't have a very large concentration
span, they need the action that three or more tables gives them to stay
focused, at a single table they'd simply get bored waiting for hands .
Concentration and patience though, like all things in life needs working
on to get and maintain. MTP's who lack these qualities arn't going to get
themselves out of this hole anytime soon with six tables at once to get
those big pairs more often.

You miss so much not concentrating your play to a single table, especially
in terms of the psychological aspects of the game, MTP's can't get into 27
players head at the same time. When desicions creep up on you you need to
weigh many things into consideration, not just the cards. That's the
sacrifice that MTP's make and for many, they're happy with that, that's
the little they give up to get a bigger overall win rate.

It's these key desicions though that are critical at the higher limits and
you need as much practice making them as possible, more hands per hour
mean more of such desicions will crop up, however, MTP are kidding
themselves if they believe that they are correctly evaluating them as well
as they could.

If you're a MTP think what you want from poker, to be the best player you
can, to play winning poker at high limits/ buy-in tournaments. If so,
think about switching to one table (make sure it's a good one) and maybe
even a slightly higher limit.



[/ QUOTE ]

Let me ask you a few questions, if you don't mind. Don't you agree that there is math involved? I mean, if your ROI drops at multiple tables but it is minimal, doesn't the increased play still mean a higher win rate? I guess each person should find their comfortable median. Also, at what win rate over x amount of SNG's would you recommend before I step up to $30? I'm around 45% now I think.

[t_perkin]

Talkinghead has a good point and one that I think about.

I mix it up - when I need a bank roll boost I will get in a bit of 2/3 tables at at time.

When I want to improve my game (which is what I spend most of my time doing) I just play one. Especially if I am just about to/have just moved up a limit.

There are skills that can be taken from multi tabling. You learn to evaluate all of the major factors (board, number of players, stack sizes etc.) very quickly.
But it is near impossible to keep a read on the ability of any of the players when you are playing 3 tables at once.

Just mix it around. You will learn different things and achieve different results from each approach.

Tim

[talkinghead]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me ask you a few questions, if you don't mind. Don't you agree that there is math involved? I mean, if your ROI drops at multiple tables but it is minimal, doesn't the increased play still mean a higher win rate? I guess each person should find their comfortable median. Also, at what win rate over x amount of SNG's would you recommend before I step up to $30? I'm around 45% now I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a simple premise, bob makes $30/hr at one table devoting his full attention to the game, when not doing so his rate falls to $20/hr. So with three tables at a time his win rate will be $60/hr, twice as much.

Your win % is all good, I'd move up when you have the roll to do so. The bottom line is how much you make, nothing says you can handle the new limit like building a roll to tackle it.

I recommend to my students, that they move up when they have built their bankroll to a level that can sustain them at the new limit AND have played at least 50 tournaments.

My recommended minimum bankroll for single table SNG's is twenty times your buy-in+entry fee ($660 for the $30+$3) moving back down should you have a run of bad fortune and your roll falls to half that ($330) till you build it back up again (this shouldn't happen often)