Re: True viability of multi-tabling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
How do you get it to automatically recognize the players at the table? When I use it I have to put their names in manually.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the Game Time window click the "Preferences" button in the center of the screen and then choose "Populate".

Thread summary
 

original post:

[ QUOTE ]
blah blah blah, i'm not very good at multi-tabling so I think it's wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

responses:

[ QUOTE ]
no, good players make way more money multi-tabling

[/ QUOTE ]

OP response

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree, you need player reads to win

[/ QUOTE ]

more responses:

[ QUOTE ]
No, really, it's true

[/ QUOTE ]

OP response:

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't believe it

[/ QUOTE ]

There, I just saved you all 5 minutes [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

think it depends on skill lvl
 

if ur good, decisions become easier and quicker and it becomes easier to focus on many tables, i remember, when i thought 3 was a lot, then 4, then 6 etc, but of course if u focus on 1 table ur win rate per table will crush ur win rate per table on 8, however you will still make many times more money w/ more tables

Re: True viability of multi-tabling?
 

It depends on you level of experience. For a new player multi-tabling will probably be very difficult.

The more you play the more automated things get and that frees up your cognitive capacity to pay attention to more things. You also get better at spotting the mistakes that your opponents make.

With enough experience you only have to watch someone play 2 or 3 hands and you already have a good read on them.

For someone with little experience who is still learing the basics multi-tabling is probably a bad idea. For those with a lot of experience it is very profitable.

Re: True viability of multi-tabling?
 

If you want to play one table, thats fine. If you want to play more you really need to check out playerview and learn what those stats say about a persons play. The info you are getting through intense study of one table I get at a glance of their stats. If a guy raises with 20% of his hands he raises with crap. If it's 2%, when he raises he has it. Memorizing the exact cards won't tell me much more. If he wins 70% of his show downs he can be bluffed, but if he's not getting out he probably has me beat. If it's 30%, value bet, the guy calls with crap. I don't need to watch the game and remember all that, the computer does it for me and does a better job. Handling and sorting and remembering data is what computers are made for. Making creative decisions bases on that data is the human job. If you feel out of touch with the table if you don't see every move you aren't using the data right or you aren't understanding it.

Steve

(rereading this it sounds harsh, which it is not ment to be, just trying to enlighten)

Re: True viability of multi-tabling?
 

[quote}...If you're playing at least 3 tables at 2BB/100, you're easily clearing the 5BB/100 you're making at your single table...

[/ QUOTE ]

This misses a very important point about making money playing poker. A 2BB/100 player requires a MUCH HIGHER bankroll than a 4BB/100 or 5BB/100 player. This is because fluctuations are a function of both your standard deviation and your hourly (or per hand) rate.

So, if you can afford to play three tables at 2BB/100 you would probably be as well of playing 4+BB/100 at a limit of 150% or higher.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my experience, multi-tabling 3 tables makes it impossible to truly know the players at each table.

[/ QUOTE ]

At lower limits, this is irrelevant. The preponderance of bad players more than makes up for the lack of player knowledge.


[/ QUOTE ]

'Bad' is not that precise of a player classification. Even at the low limits, Some people slow play to much, some people rarely bluff or semi-bluff, some poeple check-raise a lot, some people are steaming, and others are small time grinders MTing, who actually aren't playing half badly.

An expert takes full advantage of this knowlegde, saving and making extra bets which add up to quite a lot. However, I do not believe there are many (if any) EXPERTS playing more than one table. For one thing, nobody can develope these expert skills from playing more than one table. Additionally, anyone who has the gift for developing these skills (and has put in the practice) most likely has a true love of the game. These people are apt to be more easilly bored by having to play automatically (instead of expertly) and probably do not find it boring at all to sit and watch one game and learn.

So, If you are not at the expert level, but you can consistently make GOOD decisions, then you are better of MTing. You will not benefit enough from studying your opponents or moving to tougher limits. However, if you want to become an expert you will need practice thinking harder about many "easy" decisions, and watching more than three hands to study an opponent.

Re: True viability of multi-tabling?
 

[ QUOTE ]


PS How do you quote someone in your response?

[/ QUOTE ]

Use the QUOTE button top right

Re: True viability of multi-tabling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have noticed a number of players here on the forum who multi-table in the small stakes rooms. I am starting to question whether this is as profitable as just choosing the best table with the most optimum conditions and focusing all of your energy on taking it down. I know this is contrary to what a lot of people are doing out there. IMHO I just think that MT’ing really limits your true profit potential. In my experience, multi-tabling 3 tables makes it impossible to truly know the players at each table. I question whether or not you can even do it MTing 2 tables. So much is lost if you are just playing by rote mechanics of what to do w/ a certain hand in a certain position with a certain flop etc.etc.etc.

In my relatively short experience, (I've been playing Party Poker for about 15 months) I have not had the same level of return multi-tabling as I have when I carefully choose the table with which I sit down at. I use both Poker Tracker and Poker Office but have found Poker Office to be the best for determining the table I play at.

When I sign on to Party, I will go to the 3/6 room and open up 3 or 4 tables and sit down at exactly 1. I will have Poker office Live tracker monitoring each table. After about 50 hands or so, I can get a good idea of what the general play is like at the table ie: loose/tight and agro/passive. I’ll then try to sit at the table that has the most ideal conditions I am looking for.

I will after 50-100 hands immediately leave a table if there aren’t more than 2 players over 35% VPIP and ideally one or two fishys over 50%. Sometimes you get a good idea even earlier. Obviously, I don’t want to sit at a tight table so if there are a lot of players sitting there after 50 hands with a VPIP under 20, well, that’s just a waste of time, and I won’t hesitate for a second to leave and find a more optimum table. There’s just not enough money to be made at a table like that.

I am continually amazed at how many fish are playing at some of these tables even at 3/6! It is not that uncommon for me to find tables with 3 or more players at a VPIP over 50% for an extended period of time just throwing a big party! In addition, Poker Office gives you stats on how a player is playing for that table you are currently at, and next to that their historical numbers if you’ve played against them before. I know Poker Tracker does this but you have to constantly enter who is sitting in each chair and it’s a pain.

The numbers I look at on PO are VPIP, PFR% mostly, with an eye on how far a player will play their hand as well.

Anyway, I was just curious what others think out there. I know there are some players who have had success multitabling, and I wish it to continue. I just haven’t seen the same success as when I just carefully choose the table I sit at with a lot of fish and enjoy a nice “Seafood Dinner”!

Much success,
Wombles

[/ QUOTE ]

And while you're taking all your time focusing on finding a table, i'm playing.

From time to time while i have a sec in between hands of the 6 tables I'm playing, i'll do a serach on my name and get off the low pot size tables and find some other tables.

While you're bb/100 will be higher, my rate per true hour spent playing will be substantially higher. Even if I'm playing one table I can't focus on the players too much. I'll keep myself busy other ways, so really the tables aren't hurting anything.

Re: True viability of multi-tabling?
 

I see what you are saying, which is a little condescending btw, but your math doesn't add up. I can make 2.5 BB/100 playing 8 tables of 3/6. So, I guess I'm GOOD. But if I was EXPERT I would move up to 5/10 and crush the game on one table for far more per hour? Figuring 55 hands per table per hour, that’s $66/hour at 3/6, plus $15/hour for rakeback. To make that $81 an hour on one 5/10 table would mean a win rate of 14.5 BB/100. The EXPERT play you speak of doesn't produce that sort of win rate.

Re: True viability of multi-tabling?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe so, I don't know b/c I can't verify it. I think that anyone who can focus on 8 tables and average 2 bb/100 might just be a genius, or hitting a run of great cards or something, no offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

astroglide posted his 3/6 stats a while back, IIRC it was 6 tabling and more than 100k hands, and his rate was > 3BB/100. it's far from impossible.