True viability of multi-tabling?

[evain]

Some people find that they play tighter poker when they play multiple tables. ie they don't have to wait ages for one good hand to come along. So they play less hands per table but more good hands overall. That equals profit.

[talkinghead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Quality over quantity was my point here that you seemed to miss. You agree that you can make better calls at just one table, how can people be the best they can be then, if you are not consistently making the best possible desicion for the correct reasons. Assuming they are not already the best poker player in the world with nothing to learn. I think people just need to be a bit more honest with themselves as to why they multi-table.

I multi-table sometimes, at 15-30. I know the game isn't coming on but i'm making money. My argument is that people who are at lower limits might be better served moving up than multi-tabling.

Another risk of multi-tabling, which I wouldn't like to suggest for a moment applies to you personally, although it may so I urge you to consider it is the tilt risk. Especially for players who only tilt to a small extent. In my experience this is most good players.

The mistakes you make when you tilt a little, which may only show themselves by you playing hands you shouldn't, like cold-calling with A10s or playing 55 in early position, open raising with KJo etc etc.
Say you tilt for 5 minutes, you are 4 times more likely to get a marginal hand that you will overplay, thus costing yourself money, while playing 4 tables.

[sourbeaver]

Multi-tabling's profitability is player dependant.

Some players feel more comfortable playing with reads while others do not care to go on a somewhat "auto-pilot" or "algorhythm" type of poker if you will.

Those who play 3-4 tables should know if the larger number of hands makes up for the loss of table awareness.

Keep in mind that, as with anything, you get better with time. I actually have time for the occasional read and I 4-table. Couple months ago, I never bothered for a read.

[bonanz]

[ QUOTE ]
Quality over quantity was my point here that you seemed to miss.

[/ QUOTE ]

i didn't miss that point, but my point was that quantity does not necessarily sacrifice quality.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
you playing hands you shouldn't, like cold-calling with A10s or playing 55 in early position, open raising with KJo etc etc.


[/ QUOTE ]


I've been known to do all of these things in the appropriate situation....and I don't think I was tilting.

If you're on a decent loose-passive table you SHOULD be limping with 55 from EP.

If you're going to open with KJo from MP or LP then it is very possible that raising is the better play.

[MicroBob]

grrrrr....i think i screwed the whole thing up somehow.

I'm going to have to reinstall and try again possibly.
It keeps freezing-up on me every time I try to run it....and I inputed the wrong thing in one of the fields somewhere and I don't know how the hell to get back to it.

Starting over.

[ZeeJustin]

Unless your winrate divides in half, it is more profitable to play 2 tables than 1. Etc. etc. etc.

[jwombles]

Referring to other posters comment, "Those who play 8 tables don't play that many hands therefore their profit is high"

Man that's a great point. My VPIP is 18.17% and my BB/100 is 1.49. I use SSHE starting hand guidelines for tight games unless the game is just super loose.

Getting back to lunious numbers, He was at 4BB/100 and his VPIP was super low, can't remember exactly but it was like 13 or 14%. Someone mentioned that he was 8 tabling, and this would seem to make sense to just be super tight and with 8 tables going you really won't be in more than 1 or 2 hands at any given time, and be plyaing only the hands with the highest +EV.

Much Succes
Wombles

[emonrad87]

I think that multitabling also allows you to be very tight, as you would not get bored not playing any hands, and thus play marginal hands, in the way that you do when you're playing one or two tables.

[Blarg]

Bob, there is an alternative to Playerview called Gametime(not the pokertracker gametime window). It also keeps games up to date in real time. It has a bunch of stats just like playerview does, but you have to add tables manually; really nothing to that, though. But Playerview does that automatically.

Gametime is far, far easier to use than Playerview, and not buggy at all. Playerview has a lot of bugs, including losing the stats on players constantly. It also can slow down your system a lot after you've been playing a few hours. That former you can fix by closing Playerview and starting it up again, but you have to do that constantly, I've found. Just not worth the grief until they get it less buggy. Playerview will probably wind up being a better program though, as you can really pick and choose a lot of stats to display and color code things just the way you like to signify when stats hit a certain range.

On Gametime, you can mouse over a name and besides the VPIP/PFR/BB per 100/hands played that display beneath the player name, you can also get a pop up window with a lot more stats.

They're both free; try 'em both out. Gametime is easier, and because it's less buggy, so I'm using that one for now.