Playing Multiple SNG's

[aesic]

In the past week I have gone back to SNG's (10+1 at Party). I am not great at them, but I do think they are +EV for me and less variance. My questions is, how long do people wait between joining multiple SNG's. I often play 4 NL50 tables so I am not new to multi-tabling.

I run into problems with SNG's when it gets shorthanded or large blinds. Prior to that, I barely even pay attention (The blinds are so small it doesn't seeem worth it. Is this alright?). Currently I am waiting till level 3 (25/50 blinds) to start a new table. This seems to work for me, but it often means I only have 2 tables running at once, and I would like to be playing more/winning more. Any ideas?

Also, would playing at another site (Stars?) help my problem in any way?

-aesic

[aesic]

Bumpers anonymous.

-anonymous

[citanul]

Personally I do the following when I'm sitting down to play a large batch. I like to play 3 tables, so I:

A)Sit down at 2 tables.
1) If I bust before (B) I add another table.
B) When the blinds on at least one of my 2 tables hits 50/100, (sometimes mid/late 30/60) I add another table.

From there, any time I bust a table, if at least one of my tables is at late 30/60 or 50/100, I add a new table.

Occasionally if I have 2 4 handed or less tables, I wait til I am done to add new tables.

That's just me though. I'd probably do something close to this if I wanted to be playing 4 at a time.

citanul

[aesic]

Is that at Stars, because I don't believe Party has 30/60. Since Stars has a different blind structure, would this still be a good plan at Party?

-aesic

[slogger]

Don't you find that you lose the ability to get a read on your opponents playing more than 1 or 2 at a time. Even with 2, I feel like I have significantly less information to work with once it gets shorthanded (5 or 6 players).

Do you have any tricks that help you to keep tabs on people?

I assume that you feel that your ability to cash in multiple games without much insight into your opponents' styles of play outweighs the per game equity you would gain by focusing on one at a time (which makes sense if you're able to cash between 35 and 40% still and get a 30-40% ROI)?

[citanul]

Er, I play exclusively Party.
30/60 is the 2nd level of the tournament.
So basically, I'm waiting about 20 hands in before adding a new tournament I find this stagger means that one is just ending the first when the 2nd is getting to the same point on the second, if you last that long in both.

citanul

[citanul]

Admittedly, I'm working with a sample size so far of about 100 10s and 100 20s, but,

I really don't think that I lose that much of an edge moving from 2 tables to 3, though sometimes I play just two tables so I can do things like post or write emails, etc.

I find that in general, you don't need to or can't get a read that means anything in the first couple levels anyway, so you don't need to pay high attention at that time. I mostly just try to notice if someone's playing every hand, if someone has limp reraised, who raises from the blinds, who raises 10xBB instead of ~3xBB, and when there is a huge pot, I like to see if there was anyone involved who really shouldn't have been.

All this said, like I said in another post, I'm not getting more 1sts and 2nds than 3rds, so I'm not exactly playing optimally. However I am comfortable with the way I'm playing. So, I'm going to keep trying to improve stuff, but not panic or anything.

citanul

[triplc]

Maybe this is just me, but I have a hard time getting a read on anything when playing multiple SnGs at once. Two tables, maybe, but occasionally I'll play four at once and just play very straightforwardly until I get busted or things get interesting.

I've found that I play much better when I can really watch the play early on. I do think you can get reads on people early and pick up tendencies.

There's nothing I dislike more than making a strong bluff, or betting second or third pair strongly only to get called by a weak (although slightly stronger) hand, and then get busted thinking..."I bet he was a calling station...should have waited for a big hand, I guess."

Not trying to discourage multi-table play, but I do think that playing one table at a time will increase your ROI (although maybe not your hourly rate). The tough thing about this is that you really need to play a particular strategy for a number of SnGs before you can really say if this helps or hurts, but it would be interesting to keep records of your ROI and hourly rate when playing multi vs. the same stats playing 1 table at a time.

Just my two cents...

CCC

[Hood]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe this is just me, but I have a hard time getting a read on anything when playing multiple SnGs at once. Two tables, maybe, but occasionally I'll play four at once and just play very straightforwardly until I get busted or things get interesting.

I've found that I play much better when I can really watch the play early on. I do think you can get reads on people early and pick up tendencies.

There's nothing I dislike more than making a strong bluff, or betting second or third pair strongly only to get called by a weak (although slightly stronger) hand, and then get busted thinking..."I bet he was a calling station...should have waited for a big hand, I guess."

Not trying to discourage multi-table play, but I do think that playing one table at a time will increase your ROI (although maybe not your hourly rate). The tough thing about this is that you really need to play a particular strategy for a number of SnGs before you can really say if this helps or hurts, but it would be interesting to keep records of your ROI and hourly rate when playing multi vs. the same stats playing 1 table at a time.

Just my two cents...

CCC

[/ QUOTE ]

I usually get 3 tables going at a time (stagged by 2 levels between each). Even if my ROI dropped half or more by doing this, I'm up on an hourly rate (which is all that's important to me).

I play extremely straight forwardly down to 6 players and don't really get any reads other than 'good player' or 'awful player who got lucky getting down to 6 players'. Its then that I start looking for 'reads'. But even down to 6, I find the skill level on the 10+1s to poor that my play is usually dictated by a simpler strategy and less influence on a read.

The problem is I find one table just too boring. I end up surfing or reading 2+2 if I'm playing 1 table anyway, so I may as well get another game going.

[aesic]

I agree with Hood completely. I get extremely bored with one table. If I only played one table, I would be on 2+2 or reading up on casino whoring instead of getting reads.

I have found that citanul and hood's method of staggering tables to be good. I wait till my "lowest" table changes to level 3 before I start a new table. I rarely have problems with this method and seem to be just busy enough as each table gets shorthanded. Thanks for the help guys.

-aesic

[triplc]

I don't have a problem with playing many tables at once philosophically, but I don't think it allows anyone to play optimally in terms of results from SnG to SnG. I also find that I make more "silly" mistakes (hitting the wrong button, not recognizing that someone has already limped in when trying to steal a blind, etc...) when playing more than one table. Maybe this is just me, but I will stand by my argument that playing more than one at a time is not optimal. That said, I still do it occasionally.

As for boredom, I find that playing one table allows me to concentrate on all of the hands, and frequently I can pick up on something that I might have missed had I not been paying attention. Almost any hand, even one that you are not a part of, can be a learning experience if you pay attention.

I am still new at this game (playing for about 10 months), and my overriding goal (other than winning, of course) is to improve my game and learn from my mistakes. I don't think you can do that as easily playing more than one at a time. I think you end up playing more formulaicly, and it's harder to contemplate each individual move when you get a few tables going.

However, if you find that your overall hourly rate is greater, then I can't argue with it. I have typically played 2-4 at a time when playing 5+.50's at PS trying to build my bankroll back up. Now that I'm back to 10+1, I'm being more cautious, and playing one at a time.

Play well,

CCC