Multitabling 3 vs. 4

[AmarilloJim1]

This is just a hunch as I do not have a large sample size to base the following opinion.

I believe I play more successfully on 3 tables at a time as opposed to 4.

Is that common? Do you feel the same? Perhaps in time 4 will become easier?

Thanks.

[davelin]

I would venture to say that 99% of people out there probably play 3 tables better than 4. I have nothing to go this by except common sense.

[jrz1972]

I'm considering springing for a new monitor so I can 4-table. Currently I 3-table, but with a ton of overlap (I can really only see one table at a time). I have no problem doing this, but I am thinking I would play better poker 4-tabling with no overlap vs. 3-tabling with almost total overlap.

I've tried 4-tabling on my current monitor but it just doesn't work. I can't get the tables cascaded easily and one of them is always popping to the front. Too distracting.

Anybody else had this experience?

[AApprentice]

I can't 4 table without overlapping either, but I saw a post a while ago that said a 19" monitor or larger can hold all 4 without overlapping.

[evans075]

I have a 19' monitor and a really good video card and can 4 table with east, no overlap(except crypto, bigger tables, very small overlap). I'm not positive but I think that you can have a smaller monitor with a good video card that supports high resolution and can 4 table with no overlap. As for the original poster I 3 tabled for about a month and then 4 tabled and it was really easy. I just started 5 tabling, all on one monitor (4 no overlap 1 in the middle), thats not to bad either. You just need to play it out and get used to it. I think I play better with 5 tables now.

[tinhat]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't 4 table without overlapping either, but I saw a post a while ago that said a 19" monitor or larger can hold all 4 without overlapping.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the size of the monitor but the resolution it and the video card can produce. You could buy a cheap 19" monitor and discover it doesn't support the resolution you want.

I think the best trade-off resolution-wise is 1600 which will show four tables with no overlap. But naturally at 1600 everything else on your screen will be smaller too. And if you buy a cheap monitor you may get poor refresh rates which (for some ppl) can give you headaches and/or eye fatigue.

It so happens that a good 19" monitor is the minimum (IMO) for running 1600. This is probably why the post said "19". But also make sure you get a decent refresh rate (CRT) of at least 75Hz or higher for the resolution you're interested in...

Mike

[shadow29]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm considering springing for a new monitor so I can 4-table.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to do this on the cheap try this:

Video card with two VGA connections.

Another CRT monitor.

[TomBrooks]

I find a big difference between 3 and 4 tables at .5/1 and I will only play up to 3. I play around 30 VPIP though.

I find it much easier to 4 table 1/2 because I play tighter, but I'm losing my shirt at that limit though, so I'm going to stop both 3 and 4 tabling 1/2 anyway.

[irishpint]

jim i play better on 3 tables because my screen isnt large enough and my computer not good enough- make sure you have the right stuff before moving on. my brother, who is an [censored] beating 30/60 for 4BB/100 on 4 tables came in and watched my play some 4 tables of .50/1 and basically said i cant even win with my system like this becaue it's too slow and i cant see enoguh of the action.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
But also make sure you get a decent refresh rate (CRT) of at least 75Hz or higher for the resolution you're interested in...

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't buy a CRT if you're going over 17"...actually, don't buy a CRT at all, anymore. You can get a good 17" LCD (same viewable area as a 19" CRT, roughly) for under $300, now, and the difference is well worth the extra $$ (among other things, you make up the difference in price by not having to buy a larger, industrial-strength desk to put your 2-foot-wide by 2-and-a-half-foot-deep by 90-pound behemoth on).