[Freakin]

Lets just say for example that at a single table you were able to sustain an ungodly 5BB/100 over 100k hands or so. As your add more tables, this would likely decrease. Many players here are able to consistently beat games for 2BB/100 across 2,4,6, or 8+ tables. 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 (since you're playing 3x as fast), and this is a rather extreme example. Programs like PlayerView allow you to have stat-based reads on all players are all tables. Playing more tables is what allows persons with average bankrolls to play professionally. To achieve the same kind of returns on a single table in a B&M, they would have a play a table that is 2,4,6, or 8+ times thier current limit, and that table would likely come with increased difficulty. So no, it's not more efficient for a skilled player to play a single table.

Freakin