4-tabling vs 2-tabling

[cartman]

(I realize this is completely subjective, but enough of us have probably have experience with both or know others who do or have simply read this forum enough in the past to have a pretty good idea. I am interested in answers for 5/10 6-max and 10/20 6-max especially.)

Not counting rakeback...

What do you estimate the impact of moving from 4-tables to 2-tables or vice-versa is on our BB/100?

For example, lets say a player is a 3BB/100 winner playing 2 tables. What would you expect him to win 4-tabling?

An example the other direction. What would you expect a player who is a 2BB/100 4-tabler to win if he dropped down to 2 tables?

Any other examples, experiences, estimations, etc. are greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Cartman

[marand]

[ QUOTE ]
(I realize this is completely subjective, but enough of us have probably have experience with both or know others who do or have simply read this forum enough in the past to have a pretty good idea. I am interested in answers for 5/10 6-max and 10/20 6-max especially.)

Not counting rakeback...

What do you estimate the impact of moving from 4-tables to 2-tables or vice-versa is on our BB/100?

For example, lets say a player is a 3BB/100 winner playing 2 tables. What would you expect him to win 4-tabling?

An example the other direction. What would you expect a player who is a 2BB/100 4-tabler to win if he dropped down to 2 tables?

Any other examples, experiences, estimations, etc. are greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Cartman

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is very individually, some players might have problems keeping up with 4 tables and would have a terrible drop in winrate.
But if you feel like it is no problem for you then I would think that you make more $/h playing 4 tables.

I would guess that if you make 3 BB/100 playing two tables you would make a little more than 2 BB/100 playing 4 tables.
And someone making 2 BB/100 on 4 tables would probably make a little less than 3 BB/100 on 2 tables.

Just a guess, I don't have any statistics or anything to back this up with.

Perhaps you should first try 3 tables though. I find 3 tables to be "relaxing" while 4 tables takes a lot of energy playing for me.

[Rudis]

1-2 0.5BB/100
2-4 tables hardly any difference...
4-5 0.1
5-6 0.1
6-8 0.5

Would be my guesstimates...

[cartman]

I play 4 tables now but I am sure that eventually when I start 10/20 I will play only two, at least until I'm convinced I can beat it sufficiently (and I don't plan on it for a while because I still feel like I have a ton of room to improve) I am asking because I am trying to get a feel for how far I have to go. In other words, I'm trying to estimate what my BB/100 would be if I only played two tables of 5/10 and whether that number would deem me "capable" of moving up whenever I did decide to.

That being said, my overall win rate (exclusively 4-tabling) for my first 100K hands at 5/10 is almost exactly 2BB/100. I feel like I am better than that now due a little bit to a constant preflop evolution, but due primarily to some substantial postflop improvement in the last couple of months.

I wouldn't want to make the move until I was convinced that I could beat the 5/10 game for at least 3BB/100 two tabling, but I also don't want to drop down to 2 tables for 50K hands just to establish a win rate that I wouldn't be able to trust anyway!

Does anyone have an estimate?

Cartman

[krishanleong]

go buy some balls and take a shot.

Krishan

[cartman]

I'm not lacking the balls. I played blackjack full time for about 4 years when I got out of college. That game is more brutal on an average day than poker could EVER be. The bankroll swings make poker swings look nonexistent. It's just that the $100/hour that I am making right now is very meaningful money to me. I can dramatically change my financial world if I just maintain my current rate for the rest of the year. My intention is to pile up plenty of cash and then move up, not to take a shot but to stay--no matter how long it takes to learn. I wake up in cold sweats at night afraid that somehow internet poker is going to be gone overnight. I would want to run over myself with my car if I moved up and spun my wheels adjusting for a couple of months and then suddenly the game was gone. I think this is severe paranoia, however, and I appreciate you blasting my ass.

Cartman

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not lacking the balls. I played blackjack full time for about 4 years when I got out of college. That game is more brutal on an average day than poker could EVER be. The bankroll swings make poker swings look nonexistent. It's just that the $100/hour that I am making right now is very meaningful money to me. I can dramatically change my financial world if I just maintain my current rate for the rest of the year. My intention is to pile up plenty of cash and then move up, not to take a shot but to stay--no matter how long it takes to learn. I wake up in cold sweats at night afraid that somehow internet poker is going to be gone overnight. I would want to run over myself with my car if I moved up and spun my wheels adjusting for a couple of months and then suddenly the game was gone. I think this is severe paranoia, however, and I appreciate you blasting my ass.

Cartman

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the thing. Moving up and trying to stay there is not the best way to approach moving up limits. I think it's much much better to take a shot, play 1K hands. There are several things that can happen.

1. You run well and get to stay.
2. You get to know the differences between the limits so you know what to work on at 5/10.

What happens if you move up and try and stay there?

1. You run well.
2. You run badly, lose confidence, start doubting yourself and potentially damage your game.

I basically wait until I run well to move up. I keep taking shots and dropping down until I have a good streak.

Krishan

[redbeard]

just to simplify your blackjack v poker comparison let me say that I too played blackjack as my sole form of income and now play poker as my exclusive form of income and here is an analogy to describe the two: poker is like throwing a bullet and blackjack is like shooting it out of a gun. if you haven't played blackjack for a living pretend someone took a hammer and smashed your balls on a daily basis. The swings in one shoe of blackjack are greater than the swings in one week of poker at similar betting levels.

[nervous]

Some people can multitask better and will even maintain close to the same winrates playing more tables. Others may be completely lost and 3BB/100 may turn into a losing player.

Since I only have information that is valuable for full ring, I will share. I am a great multitasker. I was originally playing 4 full tables and beating it at 2.5bb/100. Then I moved to a stage where I played anywhere from 8-12 tables. My winrate still stayed above 2 for a while and eventually climbed to over 2.5bb/100, presumably as I became a better player.

Since this will probably affect shorthanded play more, the information above is only useful to some point.

FWIW, I've only tried 6tabling shorthanded games as that's what I've been recommended to do, and it doesn't seem too hard.

It just affects everyone differently.

[helpmeout]

Your future earn is what matters.

Playing 4 tables hinders your development as a player.

Many low limit and small stakes players pick up bad habits.

Their game is not complete, they fail to continue learning and losing the bad habits they have picked up because they have repeated their bad habits so many times.

This is why playing 4 tables isnt good for most players.

Too many people think about oh well im earning 2BB/100 at 2 tables so if I play 4 and still make 1.5BB/100 plus rakeback I'll be way ahead.

Personally I'd rather earn 2bb/100 at 2 tables continue to improve, move up and make 2bb/100 at a higher limit.

Move up again while Mr 4table + rakeback guy is still grinding away in the low limits.