Laying down the Gauntlet (One Vs Multi tabling)

[Rosie]

I had a thought... along the playing one Vs multitabling theory. I am a big fan of the one table concept... for reasons I have explained in other posts. What I thought might be fun was a small challenge.

It would fun if a multi-tabler fan and I could enter a small challenge... or maybe we could even get a number of single table players against a number of multi-table players in the contest.


Should we say 4,000 hands to be played? People can play whenever they want, but we can try and get the 4,000 hands done in a week or less and can post results here.


Anyone think of the best terms of measurement, other than BB/hour?

Would anyone like to take up the challenge? I think it could be fun! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I am thinking about 10/20 6max at party, or 5/10 6max

Rosie

[daveymck]

I think the majority here would concede that the chances are that two players of identical skill over time the one single tabling will have a slightly higher bb per 100 hands than one multitabling, however the fact that they are multi tabling means they will earn more overall.

So I am unsure what the point is.

A better challange is you play 4,000 hands while they play 16,000 hands on 4 tables and see who has the most cash at the end. Can compare other stats etc as well.

[Rosie]

that would make more sense! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

any takers!!??

[meow_meow]

I think 4k hands may be way too few to establish any kind on significance.
Not to be a sour puss, but since it is quite possible to do 3BB/100 while 3-tabling, and not at all possible to do 9 BB/100 while one-tabling (I'm talking party 5/10 6-max), I'm pretty sure what the outcome would be... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[bdk3clash]

Do you really think the average player's expected BB/100 goes down by 75% or more per table when playing 4 tables instead of one?

This whole thread is stupid. Multi-tabling is clearly more profitable per hour and less profitable per hand.

[nykenny]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think the average player's expected BB/100 goes down by 75% or more per table when playing 4 tables instead of one?

This whole thread is stupid. Multi-tabling is clearly more profitable per hour and less profitable per hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

sometimes multi is even more profitable per hand, if you tend to tilt out of boredom when single tabling [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think the average player's expected BB/100 goes down by 75% or more per table when playing 4 tables instead of one?

This whole thread is stupid. Multi-tabling is clearly more profitable per hour and less profitable per hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

sometimes multi is even more profitable per hand, if you tend to tilt out of boredom when single tabling [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this might be a NYKenny specific thing... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[turnipmonster]

I can't believe I am saying this, but I agree with kenny. there. I said it.

--turnipmonster

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


sometimes multi is even more profitable per hand, if you tend to tilt out of boredom when single tabling [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this might be a NYKenny specific thing... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not just specific to NYKenny

[HajiShirazu]

In addition, I can play far more hours while multitabling because it is exponentially less boring than playing one table.