|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Multitabling....necessary?
I've been trying to play short-handed exclusively the past month, and it's going pretty well thanks to a pretty good run of cards. However, any time I try to add more than one table, things go down hill fast. I end up losing at both tables because the action's pretty fast, and the decisions are more marginal than in full ring games.
Now I can two and three table full ring pretty well. In fact, it gets boring not doing so some days. My question is, how necessary is multitabling short handed? If I'm not comfortable with it, and lose money doing it, is it something I should push through? Should I continue to play one table for a while and hope I get more comfortable later? Am I a clumsy, short-attention-span-having fish who is destined to one table for the rest of my days? In a single question, did most of you single table until you were comfortable, or did you make yourself play more than one table? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Multitabling....necessary?
If you are a losing player, you should single-table, you will lose your money slower. If you are just barely a winner, you also should, since multitabling will probably make you a loser. Once you are a decent winner, multi tabling becomes crucial if you are interested in making more money.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Multitabling....necessary?
why would it be necessary? play one table and add as you get comfortable.
FWIW against non-challenging players I can play about eight tables of full ring or five tables of SH. so your ratio sounds about right. edit: also consider your sample size. I will have 1k stretches where nary a difficult decision is presented, and sometimes I'll have ten really really tough hands in a row. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Multitabling....necessary?
I'm probably worrying for the sake of worrying, it just seems like everybody except me is playing at LEAST 2 tables.
I guess just like full ring, short handed will eventually get easier to me, and I'll slowly be able to add. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Multitabling....necessary?
[ QUOTE ]
I guess just like full ring, short handed will eventually get easier to me, and I'll slowly be able to add. [/ QUOTE ] Yup. As you get better, more decisions become automatic, and you will be spend more of your time focusing on the harder decisions. Multi-tabling also requires practice though, so maybe you should occasionally drop down in limits, and increase your table count if you want to increase your multi-tabling abilities quicker. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Multitabling....necessary?
seriously, I started playing one table (short and long), added a table, added 2 tables, added 4 tables.
I know play between 2 and 12 tables of shorthand at once. The action is fast but at 1/2 the decisions are often very easy, especially with PokerAceHUD. True |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Multitabling....necessary?
[ QUOTE ]
I'm probably worrying for the sake of worrying, it just seems like everybody except me is playing at LEAST 2 tables. I guess just like full ring, short handed will eventually get easier to me, and I'll slowly be able to add. [/ QUOTE ] I felt the same way for a long time when I first started playing 6-max late in the summer. I had read all of the posts saying that if you want to move up to 3/6 or above you HAVE to learn how to play in shorthanded situations. So, I bit the bullet and forced myself to play nothing but 6-max. For a long time I just couldn't adjust. I would go on one or two day winning streaks, and then give it all back in a 2 hour session. It was miserable, but I kept reading posts and applying what I learned, and eventually it started to click. What worked for me, (and sometimes I still do this if I'm not feeling totally focused yet) is to start each session with only one table. Play for 2 or 3 orbits until you feel comfortable with basic reads of your opponents, and then add one more table. It seems like once your brain has settled into one table then adding another doesn't seem as hectic as adding two or more at once. At my current stage I am starting my sessions with 2 tables and adding a third after 20 minutes or so. It's working pretty well so far. A few weeks ago, I thought I would sit down and play some 10-max for old times sake. Man, I can't believe how slow and boring it seems now. Trust me, 4 or 5 months of exclusive shorthanded play will make a convert out of you. The only 10-handed games I play now are in NL tournaments. Good luck. Edit: For the condensed version, see Trix's post below [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Multitabling....necessary?
[ QUOTE ]
In a single question, did most of you single table until you were comfortable, or did you make yourself play more than one table? [/ QUOTE ] The answer to your question lies in what your priorities are for playing poker. Are you trying to make lots of money? Learn to multi-table. Are you playing for fun? Do whatever makes you happy. I single table most of the time because it makes the game more interesting. I'm not an action junkie who gets bored if I don't have a decision to make every 3-5 seconds. The only time I multitable is to clear a bonus. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Multitabling....necessary?
My priorities in poker are not to make a lot of money, but to ease my way up to $5/$10 within the year. Obviously, the quicker the better, but I'm in no real hurry.
I'm at $1/$2 now, with some fairly lucky forays into $2/$4. A couple more bonuses and another month of decent cards, and I should be fully rolled for 2/4. Anyway, thanks for the answers. Guess I'm trying to do too much too soon. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Multitabling....necessary?
Just wanted to add that this community is fantastic, and I truly appreciate all the help I've already received. Hopefully I'll be able to help out as well as I've been helped at some point.
|
|
|