Merits of playing multiple tables

[Jeffro]

I’m seriously debating the merits of playing multiple tables.

I have been playing online for 3 years now and for the first 2 and ½ years I played strictly one table and back in the days when I started their wasn’t even an option of playing 2 tables. Wasn’t till about year and a half ago, when people started talking about playing multiple tables that I even thought about it as a viable option.

I figured now way I was going to consider two tables until I felt my skill level was very good. Well finally took the plunge at the end of last year on the Paradise 3/6 and actually increased my BB/100 hands for those 3 months. I contributed some of this to the fact that I avoided some marginal hands that I might have played out of boredom when playing 1 table.

Beginning this year I had a 5k bankroll and decided it was time to move to the Party 5/10, 2 tables at once. I had an immediate +80 BB swing followed by a -120 BB swing, have never lost $1200 playing cards and this scared the hell out of me. Well I cut down to one table and had a fairly steady climb over 2 months to +300 BB for the year. Well last week decided to try 2 tables again and over two and ½ days dropped 90 BB’s. Cut back to one table and made it back in 3 sessions.

This brings me to today. Picked up Killer Poker Online, heard it was a decent book to deal with nuances that are unique to the online poker, and after my most recent swing I wanted some reinforcement that I’m not missing something. Well to make a long story short he subscribes to the theory that palying more then one table will degrade your results and I’m not sure which side of the fence to sit on this one, as I see a lot of talk of people preaching the value of multiple tables.

So my questions are:

Where do you sit on this topic?

Do you give an edge to your opponent playing multiple tables?

Are you giving up learning the game and playing robot poker for short term gains playing multiple tables?

[astroglide]

i play 6 15/30 tables. i don't believe i'm gaining way more than i'm giving up, and i don't feel like it's an abandonment of learning.

[pudley4]

I think the majority of winning players will see their BB/100hands decrease per table. The few exceptions would be players who play too many marginal (losing) hands in the first place, and end up folding these when playing multiple tables.

I think that most players who are winning multiple BBs/100 hands will make up enough by multitabling to offset the decrease in EV/table.

Everyone has an upper limit on the game they can beat. I think that an overwhelming majority of players will lose if they try to multitable at their max skill limit game. It's possible the 5/10 game at Party falls into this category for you.

Right now, due to financial considerations, I play 4 tables of 2/4, or 3 tables of 3/6. I have no doubt I could play higher, but I cannot give up the increased short-term EV for a long-term increase in skill.

[LetsRock]

My preference is to do one table at a time. Occassionally, I will play 2 at once, but even that is too hectic for my taste. I believe that I get a bit of edge from reading the table and playing it accordingly, which is nearly impossible to do when you're bouncing back and forth between tables. And it never fails that I end up with hands on both tables at the same time.

Just my take, but you can take the multiple tables concept and throw it away as far as I'm concerned. (and it really annoys me while constantly waiting for people to act who are playing multiple tables - it's just plain rude! it's really no fun watching their nic blink or the time bar drip down for 30 seconds turn after turn -uggggggh)

[astroglide]

not everyone who plays multiple tables is slow. i'm the one saying "zzzz" at my tables

[J.R.]

"i don't believe i'm gaining way more than i'm giving up"

Do you play multiple tables to prevent bordem, or am I misinterpeting this statement. I think I gain substantially more than I give up, hence I multi-table.

Maybe its just a matter of what "way more" means, but I consider a cumulative gain of multiple bets each hour "way more".

[astroglide]

should be amended to "do believe", heh. i DO believe that i'm gaining way more than i'm giving up. if i didn't, i wouldn't be playing as many tables as i do.

[bisonbison]

It's a personal thing. I have had very good results playing 4 tables simultaneously @ .5/1 and 1/2, and I'm just starting out on 2/4. My goal for the year is to get a decent BB/100 rate at 4 tables of 3/6.

My player reads may suffer, but I don't have a problem juggling all the different threads of action, and I know that my overall earn is much higher. If it works for you, good, do it. If not, no harm no foul.

[LetsRock]

i know not ALL of the zzzzzz players are multi-players, but they do contribute to the problem

[Dylan Wade]

Good use of player note thingies keeps my EV/table at multi tables close to my EV/table at one table. Without player notes I'd have zero read on my opponents... it's just too hard to keep track of all the players at four tables with sheer brainpower.

I believe the main difference between how I play multiple tables and how I play one table is player reads. Apart from player reads, I don't think my decision making is affected by multiple tables. Decisions are usually pretty quick anyways. If I had to play 100 tables at once I'd certainly have problems, but not at 4 tables. Thanks to queue usage, I can play quickly at many tables.

So, yeah, when playing multi tables I try to alleviate the "player read" problem as much as possible by keeping accurate notes...

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the majority of winning players will see their BB/100hands decrease per table.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is more of a statement concerning BB/Hr than BB/100.

Your BB/100 will almost certainly decrease by playing multiple tables unless you don't pay much attention when you play one table anyway. But as long as it doesn't feduce by a factor greater than thr number of table you are playing, then adding another table is still +EV.

For example if you make 4BB/100 playing 1 table and when you play 2 tables you only make 3BB/100 thats good becasue you are now seeing twice as many hands and are making 6BB/200 so have essentially increased your winrate by 50%.

Now if you add a 3rd table and your rate drops to 2BB/100 you are making 6BB/300 which is the basically the same as with 2 tables so its not worth adding this 3rd table.

I hope that makes sence.

[MicroBob]

"not everyone who plays multiple tables is slow. i'm the one saying "zzzz" at my tables"

it's not me either....except i don't say zzzzzz so much.
i might say 'stop playing so fast...i can't keep up'.


i play 4 tables of 2/4...sometimes full and sometimes short.
4 short-tables can move pretty quick....especially if one or two of them are head-to-head (i'll stick around if i think the opponent is particularly fishy).

if it moves too fast for you then don't do it.....but i think you are missing a golden opportunity if you don't learn to play multi-tables.
i am not nearly at the point where i would feel comfortable in an online 8/16 or 10/20 game.....but i have no problem at all playing 4 or 5 tables of 2/4.


if i were a 5/10 single-table player i might consider multi-tabling at 2/4 or 3/6 just to get comfortable with it.


i will admit that it probably affects my EV a little bit though.
if i'm in a big hand on one table and get a typical limping hand in LP on another table i might hit the auto 'call $2' button just assuming i'll get enough callers to make it the correct play. while it usually works....there are occasional instances where there aren't enough limpers and i would have preferred to have folded or maybe gone for a blind-steal.
i'm able to do it less and less though.

the other aspect is that i think i am staying too long at a table that has tightened up when i should be searching for fishier spots. it's tough to notice that a couple super-fish have left one of your tables when you've been busy at the other 3.....but if i ever notice it's been folded around to the blinds then i start watching that table closely to see if it's worth staying.

and now with the p-tracker note-export feature i have stats on some of the players at the table....if i have a bunch of 20%VP$IP types surrounding me then i can start looking to dump that table once the blinds come around.

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you giving up learning the game and playing robot poker for short term gains playing multiple tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think playing multiple tables is a good way for an intermediate player to improve their game, you get experience playing twice (or three times, etc.) as many flops. If your VP$IP is <20% (as it probably should be full table), there won't be many hands where you have multiple post-flop decisions to make at the same time, so you'll be able to "concentrate" on the action going on on one table at a time and learn. You get used to going back and forth between tables during hands as well (you bet, while waiting for your opponents to make up their mind, you click back to another table to make a pre-flop decisions, etc., then you come back and see what's happened and go from there...)

As far as not liking big bankroll swings, I think that's a point in favor of playing multiple tables. If your $/hr win rate is the same at, say, one table of 5/10 as it is for 3 tables of 2/4, the dollar swings should be quite a bit less multi-tabling at 2/4.

While you may play a little worse going multi (fewer opponents reads, maybe a few more mistakes, etc.), I think multi-tabling helps me to play BETTER in some respects. I don't get tempted to play marginal hands out of boredom, I tend to concentrate more, etc. Maybe my net winrate per table is lower, but not by much (IME).

And as far as diminishing returns, I don't think the winrate drops that much for a good multitabler. Say your win rate and micro/small limits is 4 BB/100 for one table. A good multitabler should be able to do about 3 BB/100 for 3 or 4 tables. That's not losing a whole bunch per table. Some good "long-term gains" in doing that.

Multi-tabling is a skill like sports, or math, or...lots of things. There's probably a natural talent to it - some people are better multitaskers than others - but it's also a skill that can be developed. Practice makes perfect, start with 2 at lesser stakes and go from there.

[Kenrick]

Some people are just wired for multi-tabling better than other people are. I've always been the type of person who can be browsing three websites at a time, looking at each one while a page is loading on the other one, while also flipping between two TV shows and having a third taped one on the VCR ready to go when both of the other two are at commercial. I don't know if it's a born thing or a learned thing, but it's a thing.

The first time I played four tables at once, I said, "How could anyone keep up with this?" Two hours later, I was bored it was so slow. I'll probably start playing more than four soon, but I need a second 21" monitor first.

So, it all depends on how you're wired, I guess.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the majority of winning players will see their BB/100hands decrease per table.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is more of a statement concerning BB/Hr than BB/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

The original poster asked "Do you give an edge to your opponent playing multiple tables?"

I think the answer is undoubtedly "Yes". If you are playing JoeFish at table 1, and making 3BB/100hands when you are playing only one table, then you add in a second table, and are now only making 2.5BB/100hands at table 1, you are giving up a little bit to JoeFish (and everyone else at table 1).

[ QUOTE ]
Your BB/100 will almost certainly decrease by playing multiple tables unless you don't pay much attention when you play one table anyway. But as long as it doesn't feduce by a factor greater than thr number of table you are playing, then adding another table is still +EV.

For example if you make 4BB/100 playing 1 table and when you play 2 tables you only make 3BB/100 thats good becasue you are now seeing twice as many hands and are making 6BB/200 so have essentially increased your winrate by 50%.

Now if you add a 3rd table and your rate drops to 2BB/100 you are making 6BB/300 which is the basically the same as with 2 tables so its not worth adding this 3rd table.

I hope that makes sence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I obviously agree with this, since I also stated "I think that most players who are winning multiple BBs/100 hands will make up enough by multitabling to offset the decrease in EV/table."