Two-table for sanity, or one-table for reading people?

[EdSchurr]

Overall I haven't played much, and I just started playing again after a few months absence so my skills are very weak. At the table I find myself slow to figure out odds, and frequently unable to make a play I'm confident in. My mantra is "lose most of the time, but win big the few times I do", and I dutifully put my chips in even though I'm often gritting my teeth. Furthermore, my memory for players is very poor.

Even though I could probably use the time to think, one-tabling is too slow between hands and I can't bother to play when I'm so bored. However, at two-tables I haven't been able to remember players at all.

So, should I attempt to play one-table, and try to focus on remembering players' plays? With such a high turn-over, is it at all worth it?

Or should I play two-tables while I learn the nuances of the game mechanics, and build my skills?

I'm leaning towards two-tabling, because I think it'll be easier to remember people and their plays once I have a larger body of knowledge in memory with which to stereotype them. (I'm using my vague notions of how memory works here.) That is, it should just be easier to learn to remember players and read them once I know the rest of the game.

If one-tabling is too boring no matter what, I'll just two-table so I can play the game.