People who play 6-8 tables.... ?

uw_madtown · #1 10-09-2004, 06:46 PM

I'm nearing 40,000 hands, having spent about 5-6 weeks 4-tabling. I've played 15,000 @ .5/1, 13,500 @ 1/2, 4,500 @ 2/4, and 2,500 @ 3/6. I'm in the green at all of them, with a BB/100 rate of 2.65...

My question is, how much more frantic is it playing 6 or 8 tables compared to 4, especially at a level like 2/4 or 3/6? I'm going to play 1500 more 1/2 hands, and then about 10,500 more 2/4 hands, before moving up to 3/6 full time. Once I've playing a larger number of hands at 3/6 to feel more confident in my winrate and improve my game, I really want to play 4+ tables.

But me scared. Reassure me that an extra 2-4 tables is no big deal.

Alobar · #2 10-09-2004, 06:47 PM

Why not just give it a shot and see what happens??

Cosimo · #3 10-09-2004, 06:53 PM

When I first started playing, I quickly got up to 5 tables. Some people can do this easily. I've got a couple friends, though, who struggle through 2 or 3 tables. If you can handle 4, then 6-8 are probably within your abilities.

As with anything, it takes a little getting used to. When UB fixed its multi-tabling bugs and dropped their limit down to 3 at a time, I went along. I've been playing 3 tables at a time for the past six months, and it's pretty damn easy. I usually spend a lot of time taking notes, reviewing HH, etc. Which is mostly useless at the 25c-50c and 50c-$1 tables. Even worse because if PT liked UB, I'd be getting similar (yet different) notes for free.

I recently moved from 3 to 5; 3xUB, 2xCrypto or Empire. I'll probably add a sixth table here soon. Just add one table at a time, play for 1000-2000 hands, then add the next. If you're taking a beating because you feel like you didn't have reads, drop down a table.

You can also use the Astroglide method: 8-table at a limit far below your usual play. It's not gonna lose you much money (if at all), and it'll be great practice. Once you get used to 8, 6 will be cake, which is good, cuz then you can spend more time watching.

uw_madtown · #4 10-09-2004, 07:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why not just give it a shot and see what happens??

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm going to. But you know, just wanted to get an idea how difficult people who have done it found that process, of adjusting to 2 or 4 more tables.

I think that I could handle it in terms of keeping track of the games fairly well. I'm more concerned with getting exhausted by it -- I'm able to 4-table for pretty big chunks of time, because I can browse the internet / chat on IM / watch TV while doing it and still win at a pretty good clip (so far). I think that ability to do some other activity while playing keeps it from being a real, real bad grind.

Anyway, just wanted to see how it had gone for other people and how difficult it's been for others.

curtains · #5 10-09-2004, 07:50 PM

Play 8 tables of a much smaller stake to see how it goes, like 1-2 or 50 cent 1 dollar. Whenever you make a signifigant jump in # of tables played, I think its always good to test it at a lower level and see how it feels.

crockpot · #6 10-09-2004, 07:51 PM

it's not hard once you get used to it. just try it. every person has their own limit for how much multi-tabling they can tolerate. for me, the limit is as high as 15 full tables of pot-limit omaha. i could never handle that many hold 'em, stud, or shorthanded games.

Ponks · #7 10-09-2004, 08:22 PM

I'd give it a try. You get used to it. Even 8 tables gets boring for me now sometimes after doing it for 5 months now.

Ponks

Michael Davis · #8 10-09-2004, 08:29 PM

Unfortunately, it is a big deal. With 4, you can have them all on one monitor (at least for me that is the limit) and can still gauge your opponents.

With eight, your ability to record/check for extra information is severely limited. It is an insane clickfest. Basically, you have to find games where you can just play your own cards and win. Blind-stealing and defense become much tougher.

There is a huge difference between 4 and 8, and I suspect the difference between 4 and 6 is greater than between 2 and 4, even if this is mathematically wrong.

-Michael

Sponger15SB · #9 10-09-2004, 08:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'd give it a try. You get used to it. Even 8 tables gets boring for me now sometimes after doing it for 5 months now.

Ponks

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been 8 tabling for 3 weeks and it gets boring. And I play NL, where supposedly there is more excitement, or so i've heard.

I thought you played 12 tables at a time though? What do you think of that?

Oh and if I were people who want to 8 table I'd get 2 monitors, its sooooooooo much easier.

uw_madtown · #10 10-09-2004, 08:43 PM

I do have 2 monitors, although the second one is a crappy monitor that has low resolution. Good for browsing internet and IMing and watching downloaded TV episodes while 4-tabling, but really could only fit 2 tables on there comfortably. But by the time I am thinking of adding beyond 4 tables, I'd probably have bought the highly touted 2001FP Dell LCD.