True viability of multi-tabling?

[jwombles]

I have noticed a number of players here on the forum who multi-table in the small stakes rooms. I am starting to question whether this is as profitable as just choosing the best table with the most optimum conditions and focusing all of your energy on taking it down. I know this is contrary to what a lot of people are doing out there. IMHO I just think that MT’ing really limits your true profit potential. In my experience, multi-tabling 3 tables makes it impossible to truly know the players at each table. I question whether or not you can even do it MTing 2 tables. So much is lost if you are just playing by rote mechanics of what to do w/ a certain hand in a certain position with a certain flop etc.etc.etc.

In my relatively short experience, (I've been playing Party Poker for about 15 months) I have not had the same level of return multi-tabling as I have when I carefully choose the table with which I sit down at. I use both Poker Tracker and Poker Office but have found Poker Office to be the best for determining the table I play at.

When I sign on to Party, I will go to the 3/6 room and open up 3 or 4 tables and sit down at exactly 1. I will have Poker office Live tracker monitoring each table. After about 50 hands or so, I can get a good idea of what the general play is like at the table ie: loose/tight and agro/passive. I’ll then try to sit at the table that has the most ideal conditions I am looking for.

I will after 50-100 hands immediately leave a table if there aren’t more than 2 players over 35% VPIP and ideally one or two fishys over 50%. Sometimes you get a good idea even earlier. Obviously, I don’t want to sit at a tight table so if there are a lot of players sitting there after 50 hands with a VPIP under 20, well, that’s just a waste of time, and I won’t hesitate for a second to leave and find a more optimum table. There’s just not enough money to be made at a table like that.

I am continually amazed at how many fish are playing at some of these tables even at 3/6! It is not that uncommon for me to find tables with 3 or more players at a VPIP over 50% for an extended period of time just throwing a big party! In addition, Poker Office gives you stats on how a player is playing for that table you are currently at, and next to that their historical numbers if you’ve played against them before. I know Poker Tracker does this but you have to constantly enter who is sitting in each chair and it’s a pain.

The numbers I look at on PO are VPIP, PFR% mostly, with an eye on how far a player will play their hand as well.

Anyway, I was just curious what others think out there. I know there are some players who have had success multitabling, and I wish it to continue. I just haven’t seen the same success as when I just carefully choose the table I sit at with a lot of fish and enjoy a nice “Seafood Dinner”!

Much success,
Wombles

[BusterStacks]

I find:
1 table to be boring.
2 tables to be easy
3 tables to be optimal
4 tables to be work.

You give up a slight but increasing edge with each subsequent table, but on a per hour basis, multi-tabling will show a higher profit if you are a winner. It's just a fact. I guess if I had all the time in the world, I could absolutely focus on 1 table, but I need to play 1k hands/day and this would take what, 20 hours 1-tabling? Sorry. In summary, what you give up by adding more tables, especially more than 1, should not affect your play enough to make it a bad idea.

[jwombles]

Thanks for your reply. I am not suggessting that MT-ing is a bad idea. A couple of thoughts:

1. Mt-ing 4 tables you might get one good table with the optimum conditions and let's say 2 so-so tables and one tight table on average. It's been my experience that whatever I gain by breaking the good table I would sometimes give back to the tight table and try to make up the difference at the so-so tables.

2. In my experience, MT-ing more than 2 tables you cannot possibly notice any trends at a certain table to take advantage of. There is just too much action going around from table to table.

3. In addition, I think it limits the opportunity to really and truly improve your play against a normal ring game. Sure, I know that a lot of players do well MT-ing here, and that's great. I even tried it for a while.

I just found that , when you have that much going on that you have to start playing mathematically more than on the texture of the different players at your table. And even though this is internet poker, let's not forget that poker is still a people game, and you gain a lot from seeing what each player plays, raises, check raises with etc.

Just some more thoughts.

Wombles

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, I think it limits the opportunity to really and truly improve your play against a normal ring game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

While it's true that you're making mostly rote decisions while multitabling, you still have to be able to process a lot of information simultaneously and make quick decisions. For an experienced multitabler, the B&M game is almost like playing in slow motion. You can make certain decisions without thinking, because you've seen them hundreds of times before. You can then devote your energy and attention to player reads and thinking about your lines of play much more indepth.

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
While it's true that you're making mostly rote decisions while multitabling, you still have to be able to process a lot of information simultaneously and make quick decisions. For an experienced multitabler, the B&M game is almost like playing in slow motion. You can make certain decisions without thinking, because you've seen them hundreds of times before. You can then devote your energy and attention to player reads and thinking about your lines of play much more indepth.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is very true. Playing online, especially through multi-tabling has helped with the technical play so much that when I hit the cardroom I am able to seriously focus on the more intricate aspects on individuals that can only be done on live games..ie reads and emotion levels.

Lawrence

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Mt-ing 4 tables you might get one good table with the optimum conditions and let's say 2 so-so tables and one tight table on average. It's been my experience that whatever I gain by breaking the good table I would sometimes give back to the tight table and try to make up the difference at the so-so tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do know that you can easily drop a table that sucks while multitabling, right?

[jwombles]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Mt-ing 4 tables you might get one good table with the optimum conditions and let's say 2 so-so tables and one tight table on average. It's been my experience that whatever I gain by breaking the good table I would sometimes give back to the tight table and try to make up the difference at the so-so tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do know that you can easily drop a table that sucks while multitabling, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

But when you are MTing, honestly, you don't have the time to truly analyze the table and realize it sucks until you are down enough to think it's time to leave.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
But when you are MTing, honestly, you don't have the time to truly analyze the table and realize it sucks until you are down enough to think it's time to leave.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, just pay attention to how many players are limping. If it keeps getting folded around, it's not a good table.

And I also use PokerTracker's note exporter to remind me which players are loose, which are aggressive, which are tight, etc...

If multitabling isn't for you, no big deal. But to say it's not "viable" for others is silly.

[talkinghead]

[ QUOTE ]


3. In addition, I think it limits the opportunity to really and truly improve your play against a normal ring game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point, I believe it to be so and I'll explain why.

To beat games you've got to make good betting desicions,
these desicions are based are largely based on observations. While some of these observations can be made by programs mentioned elsewhere in this thread ( a players VSIP etc) others, such what an opponents check on the flop after a pre-flop raise usually signifies, are missed when multi-tabling. How can you read hands and get those narrow value bet desicions the right way when making four at the same time?

That much is obvious, no one can argue, without deluding themselves, that better desicions can be made from concentrating on one single table, than on four simultaneously.

My point is, to improve yourself, you need practise in making the best desicions. If you make a mistake you will likely miss it and likely make it again. Quality over quantity everytime.

To someone who wants to improve their game I would urge to not give in to the tempatation of playing more tables for more action/excitement.
For those who say it increases the win rate and are only concerned with the cash, fine, good for you. But are you multi-tabling at $15/$30 (Party player) and if not why not? Perhaps the old game needs some work.

[bonanz]

this thread is so stupid. i believe it to be so, let me tell you why.

i would guess that most of the people arguing against multitabling have

1. tried it for a short amount of time if at all

2. had poor results

[ QUOTE ]
While some of these observations can be made by programs mentioned elsewhere in this thread ( a players VSIP etc)

[/ QUOTE ]

non-multitablers seem to think that those who do multitable are mindless zombies just clicking away not paying attention to anything. that multitablers rely on helpful programs, otherwise they might lose. fyi player view and gametime are new within the past 3-4 weeks. people played a million tables before that and won...

[ QUOTE ]
others, such what an opponents check on the flop after a pre-flop raise usually signifies, are missed when multi-tabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

absolutely incorrect

[ QUOTE ]
How can you read hands and get those narrow value bet desicions the right way when making four at the same time?

[/ QUOTE ]

it's pretty easy, but you are correct that some desicions become tougher, but you are also very correct in that they are narrow. which is why your win rate may go down slightly


[ QUOTE ]
My point is, to improve yourself, you need practise in making the best desicions.

[/ QUOTE ]

i find this statement highly ironic. by practice you mean...play more hands?

[ QUOTE ]
To someone who wants to improve their game I would urge to not give in to the tempatation of playing more tables for more action/excitement.

[/ QUOTE ]

multitabling is not for everyone. and there may be an argument that beginners should not multitable. but if you try it and find it is not for you, that does not make it hurtful to everyone. there is no shame in not being able to multitable well, even though reading these boards, new comers may get the impression that multitabling is "the thing to do"

howerver to argue that multitabling hurts your continued learning of the game is absurd. to argue that it is hurting already winning players who are multitabling and winning more is also absurd.