Quick question - Learning Rate when playing multiple tables
 

To start with, let me say that I am pretty bad at poker, I am in no way an expert, but I really want to learn.

Right now I am playing 0.50/1.00 6-Max and 3 or 4 tabling (depending on the site). I am beating the game for a good clip, but think that if I played better I could easily add 3 or more bb/100 hands. This is only from errors that I recognize I made before the hand is over (i.e. Raising 2 overcards on the buton against 3 other opponents on a coordinated flop, one of those plays that make your slap your head and go 'DOH!' about 1 second after you make it - Another example is calling down too much when I am almost always behind). I think that I could add even more if I really studied on here more than I do and looked for the small differences, like finding those single bet 'value bets' or learning to make good laydowns based on reads, etc. My thinking is that it is these 'value bets' and laydowns that make a winning player at 5/10+, as the win rates are lower and the players are better.

Now while I fully realize that I really need to improve before I get too much higher, but I am ready to start to play 1/2 (based on advice from this forum, I have lots of Bankroll so that is not a concern).

My question is this: How much does learning drop off when multitabling? If you could rank them interms of tables played what would the rankings be? Using 1 table as 100% learning (and assuming that each additional table decreases learning opportunities as you are not paying as much attention to each hand). For Example:

1 table - 100%
2 table - 75%
3 table - 30%
4 table - 10%

Where I am going with this is....if you are still learning to 'master' a level should you really be playing 4 tables or is that only for raking in the cash after you have mastered the level? (assuming that you can master a level - Lets say beating it for 3.5+ bb/100 at 5/10 for example)

Just something that I am thinking about, as I know that I shouldn't go to 4 tables as soon as I move up to 1/2, but don't know if I should start with 2 or 3, or 1. I will likely start with one, but if the feedback is that it really drops off at 2, then I will likely stay with 1 longer than I would normally.

Thanks for the replys

margon

Re: Quick question - Learning Rate when playing multiple tables
 

Uh...there really is no unit of measurement to show how much you've learned.. But there is no way this question can be answered in a global sense. Some people cant handle more than a couple tables, some people get bored playing less than 4. It's a question you'll have to answer for yourself.

If you think you'll learn faster playing 1 table, then that is obviously the best route for you to take. You'll need to experiment around yourself though. This really isnt an answer you can get from someone else.

Re: Quick question - Learning Rate when playing multiple tables
 

I'm going to stop replying to threads like this eventually, because it probably hurts my long-term win rate . . . but in my opinion you should 2-3 table a limit, no more, and then move up as fast as reasonably possible. I think that *most* people do not learn as much when 4+ tabling, or even 3+ tabling, because they are not observing hands that they are not participating in.

Why 4+ table 1/2 when you could be 2-tabling 3/6? Why 4+ table 3/6 when you could be 2-tabling 5/10? Why 4-table 5/10 when you could be 2-tabling 10/20? And so on.

Eventually, you may reach a limit (i.e., 4+ tabling 5/10) that you aren't interested in getting better or making more money, and just want to coast on the very respectable win rate you can knock out at said limit. Not the way I think about things, but . . .

As far as learning rate goes . . . like I said, player reads become more and more important the higher you go in limits, and your ability to make those reads suffer when you play lots o' tables. At least, they suffer for 90% of players. Finally, let me note that when people post in HUSH about horrible downswings or horrible plateaus, said posters are almost always 4+ tablers. I don't think that this is a coincidence.

Re: Quick question - Learning Rate when playing multiple tables
 

4 tabling 50c/$1 lol

What crap are they preaching in the micros these days.

You shouldnt even bother with 2 tables until you hit 3/6 or 5/10.

Reasons:

1. Cos you suck and dont know how to play yet
2. You should be taking in so much information
3. You should be focusing on how to play each hand properly
4. You should be learning not trying to increase your poor excuse of an earn rate

Re: Quick question - Learning Rate when playing multiple tables
 

[ QUOTE ]

1. Cos you suck and dont know how to play yet
4. You should be learning not trying to increase your poor excuse of an earn rate

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know why you had to be rude on this....

Margon

Re: Quick question - Learning Rate when playing multiple tables
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why 4+ table 1/2 when you could be 2-tabling 3/6? Why 4+ table 3/6 when you could be 2-tabling 5/10? Why 4-table 5/10 when you could be 2-tabling 10/20? And so on.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe because you can win at the same hourly rate with lower bankroll requirements when you four-table 1/2 than when you two-table 2/4.

Re: Quick question - Learning Rate when playing multiple tables
 

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, let me note that when people post in HUSH about horrible downswings or horrible plateaus, said posters are almost always 4+ tablers. I don't think that this is a coincidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point.

___1___

Re: Quick question - Learning Rate when playing multiple tables
 

The learning process doesn't depend so much on the number of tables you are playing as it does the ability to consciously and deeply think about every hand you are playing. That is the key and that is the only way you will ever learn anything significant in this game.

Of course, it only logically follows that most people will be able to deeply think about hands more easily if you are playing 100 hands per hour than if you are playing 200 hands per hour. But that is not the fundamental aspect of it, and if you are willing and able to think deeply and consciously about 240+ hands per hour, by all means do so. You will move up rapidly in limits and will be crushing 30/60 in no time.

Re: Quick question - Learning Rate when playing multiple tables
 

[ QUOTE ]
The learning process doesn't depend so much on the number of tables you are playing as it does the ability to consciously and deeply think about every hand you are playing. That is the key and that is the only way you will ever learn anything significant in this game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the essential point. It boggles my mind how quickly the players on party poker reach for the raise/fold/call buttons.

Re: Quick question - Learning Rate when playing multiple tables
 

I'm just being honest dont take it personally.

People at lower limits are new players who should be looking to improve not increase their bankroll.

Every hand you play has something for you to think about.

How good is my hand? Should I fold here? call or raise?
What are the benefits of each?

What hands do my opponents likely have?

How are they playing?

These are the things you need to learn to become better. To become a small winner at 5/10 6max really doesnt take that much.

You just have to learn all these basics.

Once you master them all you will be playing much higher and will be able to multitable for a decent earn.

By playing too many hands you also reinforce bad habits which take a while for you to untrain.