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

[DCWGaming]

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.

[Grisgra]

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.

[einbert]

[ 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.

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

At 1/2 you should be far more concerned about BB/100 than hourly rate. Think about moving up, not about grinding.

[___1___]

[ 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___

[arkady]

Yeah this cannot be stressed enough. Unless you are a very gifted player 4 tables will reduce your win rate. It will no matter how good u think are!

Therefore swings will be more prevalent. Grisgra's table reduction advice is helpful for those that do not want to endure and experience the emotional turmoil of 6max swings. The only downswide to all of this is that it becomes difficult to determine one's true win rate since the results converge slower. Slow and steady wins the rate, preach on Gris!!

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah this cannot be stressed enough. Unless you are a very gifted player 4 tables will reduce your win rate. It will no matter how good u think are!

Therefore swings will be more prevalent. Grisgra's table reduction advice is helpful for those that do not want to endure and experience the emotional turmoil of 6max swings. The only downswide to all of this is that it becomes difficult to determine one's true win rate since the results converge slower. Slow and steady wins the rate, preach on Gris!!

[/ QUOTE ]

And while it make take longer to determine one's true win rate, it does not take longer to determine that one is a winning player. A 2-tabling 2BB/100 player at 20k hands is going to be more confident he's a winning player (and more likely to be up overall) than a 4-tabling 1BB/100 player at 40k hands.

[arkady]

Thats a damn good point too, I was running at 1.4 for a looooooong time, like almost 100k hands. You can imagine how many 200bb downers I had and overall it was just a very frustrating and unpleasant experience.

By reducing tables one can move up in limits, actually PLAY poker using intelligence rather than robotic responses and quite possibly incease the money intake. I don't know how or where it happened, but everyone just kept adding more and more tables.

Here is the poker life cycle imo.

You go from 1 table to 2 to whatever 4,8 and then you increase the stakes, become smarter and go exactly backwards from 8,4 whatever to 2 and maybe to 1.

[helpmeout]

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