[llamaoo7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just think when you have to pay attention to more people (not necessarially playing more hands) your reads will be weaker and you will miss some plays.

[/ QUOTE ]
Other people say that when they play multiple tables, they play better because they are not tempted to play too many hands out of boredom.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you saying if you multitabled 25/50 NL you would have a the same risk of ruin and downswings? I guess if you played that game without reads (and if you do, I'd like to play you sometime) or if you can keep the same reads and memory with double the people (then I don't want to play with you) then yes, it would be the same. Effectively shooting down this point and generalizing everyone as playing without reads (or being able to play and get the same reads as if they were one tabling), you destroyed the rest of my points which is why I pointed out in my first post that this question is entirely too broad. You seem to be applying this information strictly to games where reads are not that important at all. I was just saying this in theory and you brought about a fact that isn't necessarially true with everyone. Some people actually play better at one table who know how to squeeze out extra bets in situations that would be overlooked in multitabling (probably an extra .04BB/100 hands in those small situations). Yes the difference is incredibly small, but I believe IMHO that there is a greater chance, no matter how slight it is.