better results playing 1 table or multiple at same time?

[PokerPaul]

I personnally try to stick to only 1 table at a time, but i have read about people getting better returns playing 3 or even 4 simultaneously at a lower limit.

I do win regularly playing my regular 6 handed table, so the general logic makes sense, why not play 2 or 3 to double or triple up profits.

However, when i did try, i found that i could not properly concentrate on any one table, much less take in all the info on each opponent from every screen, and check all the HH's along the way for info.

Furthermore, you are also paying double or triple the rake where if you would otherwise limit yourself to one table at a higher limit.

I think that i am comfortable playing the one table at a time, and my results are strong, but am i missing out on much added profit potential?

whats the consensus out there?

[dogmeat]

You have your own results, and your own opinion, as shown by your post. Why do you need an answer from everybody else?

Rake is irrelevant if you do not have a rebate deal with an affiliate. The only thng that matters is how much you make per game playing just one, and how much you make per hour per game if you multi. Figure it out for yourself.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[Thythe]

I think it's dependent on the type of game you play. The way you are talking is that you gather info about all the players and act accordingly. This seems to be a good strategy for playing 1 table and being very focused on it, extracting every bit of profit from it.

The way I play, and others who multitable I would assume, is very ABC style. I never really know if someone is a strong player, a fish, medium, etc. The screen just pops up and I make a decision, always playing the strongest hands. This probably lowers your per table profit but can raise overall profits significantly (in some instances).

[PoorLawyer]

The one good thing I noticed from playing multiple tables is that I tend to play stronger hands because I don't get bored waiting around for good cards

[MicroBob]

one thing i have noticed about some of the players who say they are 'overwhelmed' tryin to play 2 tables at once is that they may not be aware that they can put both tables on the screen at the same time by adjusting the screen-resolution.
just a thought.


assuming you have two tables on your screen at the same time...try playing one table of your normal limit (say it's 3/6) and another table of a lower limit like .5/1 or something.
direct most of your focus on the 3/6 table and then play pretty tight on the .5/1 table so you'll be folding a little more often.

this is possibly a more gradual way to adjust to playing multiple-tables.

playing 1 table is so slow for me. there are so many hands that i'm not playing...i'm usually surfing 2+2 (like now), watching TV...reading e-mail, etc etc.
i can fairly easily play 3-4 tables and still do this stuff.
it's usually fold fold fold if you're playing tight. of course, there are the times when i get AK and/or AQ on all 4 of my tables at the same time so i am reaching for the mute on the TV-remote to concentrate a bit more.


it takes a little practice...when i first started playing 2-tables at once i was juggling back and forth so much i had no idea what was going on.


as far as whether it's profitable...only you can be the judge.

most people lose a little per table when multi-tabling...but not enough to say they would be better off playing 1 table.

for example...
even if my rate drops pretty dramatically, i'm still better off multi-tabling....
for example:
1-table of 1.5BB/hr = 1.5 BB/hr
2-tables of 1.2BB/hr = 2.4 BB/hr
3-tables of 1.0BB/hr = 3.0 BB/hr
4-tables of 0.8BB/hr = 3.2 BB/hr

personally, i think i lose less than this with each table...maybe 0.1BB/hr per table....so playing up to 4 tables is clearly worth it for me.

[Losing all]

Good points by thythe, I'll add one thing. It takes practice! When I first started to experiment, 3 tables of .50/1. seemed like a mind blowing chore. Now I can 4 table NL tourneys w/o too many problems (Though I'll admit this can get hairy at times).

Going off the information you give about your playing style you wont triple your earn going from 1 table to 3, but you might double it. That's goot enough.

[Jeffro]

Wow, god forbid somebody uses this message board to ask a question.

[ QUOTE ]
Rake is irrelevant if you do not have a rebate deal with an affiliate. The only thng that matters is how much you make per game playing just one, and how much you make per hour per game if you multi. Figure it out for yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need to re-read the question

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, you are also paying double or triple the rake where if you would otherwise limit yourself to one table at a higher limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

And why don't you figure why this is so.

[BradleyT]

The progression upwards isn't linear. If you win 2BB/100 at one table you're not going to win 8BB/100 by playing 4 tables. However you'll probably be able to achieve more than 3BB/100.

Which is better? I prefer multi tables because it gets you closer to "the long run" that much faster and I don't consider it 4x the amount of work.

[BIGRED]

[ QUOTE ]
You have your own results, and your own opinion, as shown by your post. Why do you need an answer from everybody else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he doses have is own opinions and his own results, but he's asking what we think to see if he can do better... I don't see anything wrong with his question.

[ QUOTE ]
Figure it out for yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what he is trying to do. What's with the attitude.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
The progression upwards isn't linear. If you win 2BB/100 at one table you're not going to win 8BB/100 by playing 4 tables. However you'll probably be able to achieve more than 3BB/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

BB per hundred should definitely go down, not up. BB per real hour for 4 tables vs 1 should be much more than just 50% higher, I'd guess somewhere around 3-3.5 times the single table BB/hr.

[ QUOTE ]
Which is better? I prefer multi tables because it gets you closer to "the long run" that much faster and I don't consider it 4x the amount of work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, your BB per real hour will be only slightly less than your single table BB/hr times the number of tables, and your standard deviation per real hour will be only slightly more than your single table SD/hr times the square root of the number of tables.

So for 4 tabling, you get nearly 4 times the earn and only a little more than twice the variance.