Which is better, more tables at lower buyin or vice versa?

[needcash]

Is one form "better" than the other? For example, say I want to have $44 worth of tables open, would I be better suited to 4 tabling the $11s or 2 tabling the $22s?

[splashpot]

Assuming you can play 4 tables equally as well as you play 2 tables, then 4 tabling the $11s is better. Lower variance and worse players.

[Solami17]

Since it is much easier to keep track of 18 other players than it is 36, I would go with less tableat higher buyins. You play much better this way, IMOO

[Hornacek]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming you can play 4 tables equally as well as you play 2 tables, then 4 tabling the $11s is better. Lower variance and worse players.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not really sure how it makes sense the other way around. unless maybe you're talking about the difference between $5s and $11s, since the players are equally donky-donk.

[handsome]

Less tables.

The 11s really aren't all that read-dependent. Playing really basically without doing anything fancy will get you a positive ROI. If you can play well at 4-tables, play four.

Like Splashpot said too, more tables = less variance.

[GutPunch]

if your goal is to make the most $$/hr then most likely you will need to play as many tables as possible.

[citanul]

sigh.

how about you sit down and [censored] think about it for a while?

citanul

[se2schul]

It depends.

What's better?
Higher hourly rate? Lower variance? Better chance at improving skill?

Even if you were to say hourly rate, it's quite possible that someone could have a higher hourly rate 4 tabling the 11s whereas someone else would find it more profitable to 2-table the 22s.

[downtown]

[ QUOTE ]
sigh.

how about you sit down and [censored] think about it for a while?

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this.

Also, why is this situation always stated as an either/or proposition? I don't believe it should be.

More tables and higher buyin is obviously the answer in the long run.