Value of multi-tabling ? (LONG)

[cero_z]

[ QUOTE ]
WTF.
Why is nobody sniping this?
Lets see, one full table of 2/4, getting maybe 70 hands an hour, lets be generous and say 80/h. 30 hours a week, so, 2400 hands/week. Clearing $2k/w (plus bankroll growth to boot!) or 500BBs.
Lets see, that's 21 BB/100 hands (not factoring in bankroll growth.)
So, unless you meant 20/40 and were too lazy to include the zeros, I call shenanigans.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. That's less than 9 PTBB's/hour. The OP may have exaggerated or lied, but that winrate is definitely possible playing one 6-max table (not positive about a full game). It's possible at 5/10, anyway, so I assume it's possible at 2/4. I think those of you who say you give up very little per table by multi-tabling are wrong, but it's possible you just think much quicker than I do.

The balance I've struck is to play one shorthanded NL game and 2 full limit games (usually 5/10NL, 20/40 or 30/60 limit Hold'em or Omaha 8). I give virtually all of my attention to the NL game, as I find that I can play limit on auto-pilot in a full game. Still, I know I'd win more at 30/60 (per table) if I just focused all my attention on one game.

[uaw420rook]

I am currently 6 tabling. I have worked my self up to 6 tables over the past two years. The reason I increased the number of tables originally was to clear bonuses faster and increase my limited bankroll. As my bankroll increases my ability to play higher limits increases, plus ability to clear bonuses at a faster rate depending on Terms and conditions. I guess I didn't start multitabliing to win more money at the tables, it was just taking advantage of the numerous bonuses out there. I do know that I have improved to some degree, but the reads on other players is suffering. I do find that my attention is dedicated to the six tables, and nothing else. The TV is on, but it could be the HSN for all I care. When I one table, I am much easier distracted. The value, to me has been mauling bonuses. Also I Never go into full Tilt when Im on 6 tables. Don't have time to worry about the bad beat, got 5 other hands to look at. Tilt used to be a problem for me. I have to watch subtle tilt which can be just as bad, because I don't realize Ive tilted untill I look back at the hands later. I do wonder how many multitablers started out on smaller limits, trying to clear bonuses to work their way up the limits. Thats my take.

[AJo Go All In]

value? this is a simple math question. do i win less than one eighth as much per table when i play 8 tables than when i play one? of course not.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a 1600x1200 resolution with 0 overlap which is a must if you choose to 4 table.

[/ QUOTE ]
I 4-table NL1/2 6max at Party on a 14" low-res laptop with at least 80% overlap. Probably closer to 90%. Works fine. Obviously high res big screens are better. Mine works, though.

[edge]

[ QUOTE ]
I 4-table NL1/2 6max at Party on a 14" low-res laptop with at least 80% overlap. Probably closer to 90%. Works fine. Obviously high res big screens are better. Mine works, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

You miss out on a lot when the tables overlap. It's really hard to get an accurate read like that. 1/2 can pretty much be autopiloted, but I wouldn't recommend that for higher stakes.

[Lucky]

[ QUOTE ]
I have played online on-and-off for about 4 years and recently the number of players multi-tabling has increased dramatically.

I currently play mostly on Prima at 2/4 full ring (although I will help to start a new table) and I find that if there are 3 full tables going at this limit, at least 3 or 4 of the players will be playing at all 3 tables.

I have dabbled with multi-tabling but have not really enjoyed the experience. I have felt under pressure to make decisions before I am ready and have felt as though I was only able to play my own cards, rather than play the opponent and his cards.

When I play against the multi-tablers I usually feel as though I know where I am in a hand with them, and take quite a bit of money from them, as I'm sure I can read them better than they can read me.

My question is this:

IS MULTI-TABLING REALLY AS PROFITABLE AS PEOPLE MAKE OUT?

The points I can see AGAINST multi-tabling are as follows:

1. Difficulty of analysis at the table
2. Relatively high bankroll requirements
(in relation to win-rate per table)
3. Difficult to IMPROVE 'player-playing' ability, as opposed to 'card-playing' ability - when games get tougher will the skills to adapt be there?
4. Stress caused by speed of response required must be mentally draining
5. ABC nature of play required
6. Game / seat selection may suffer at the desire to play the required number of tables
7. Boredom - to me, it seems like the multi-tablers existence is grim, almost like being on a treadmill.

I played 'professionally' for 3-4 months last summer when I lost my job. At that time there was less multi-tabling around than I see now, and less players, but I was happy for the most part playing 2/4 full(ish) table, for 25-30hrs per week, clearing $2000 per week after allowing for bankroll growth.

How many hours do you guys play and how much do you clear?

Would you enjoy the game more if you only played one table?

Could you make the same amount of money, playing less hours, on one table with better game / seat selection and a smaller bankroll? How would this affect the rest of your non-poker playing day?

BTW, I realise this is a one-eyed view of the multi-table strategy, so feel free to convince me otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think number 3 is the key. I'm seriously considering dropping down to 3 tables for just that reason. It seems as if im cruising on auto pilot, decent/not super winrate and just doing poker excercises. If I want to get to next level, i think 3 tables as opposed to 5 (often times 2 NL 10/20 full nut peddling and 3 short 3/6 and 2/4 NL).

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I play 2 tables only of NL2k on party. I believe its less stressful and the variance is also less. But then again I have been playing poker for only 6 months now . I have logged 20k hands since the party 2k tables started.

[/ QUOTE ]

does this happen?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've only been playing NL cash for 6 months now and I play in 50/100 nl.

[Wardfish]

The consensus seems to be IN FAVOUR of multi-tabling. That said, I just dont think its something that suits me and I will continue to play one table at a time.

I guess that many (but not all!) multi-tablers have built up a series 'default plays' that get the money from 'random players' and 'defined player-groups'. I'm willing to concede that this theory could be way off the mark. Maybe my thinking is restricted by my own lack of ability to process info quickly enough to multi-table.

I take the point that many players will be able to play multi-tables at 90% of the 'A' game level. This should be sufficient to increase win-rate per hour compared with playing one table at 100%. On top of this, how many players can maintain their 'A' game anywhere approaching 100% of the time.

Another important issue is what triggers your boredom? Is watching and folding most hands (ie. playing one table only) more mind-numbing than being on the poker-playing equivalent of a production line (ie. multi-tabling)? Maybe the answer here is to find your own optimum level and play that number of tables.

And what about enjoyment? From a purely monetary perspective it may be +EV for a player to multi-table, but he may be able to win at a satisfactory level with higher enjoyment, with greater long-term sustainability by playing fewer tables. After all, its up to each player to decide how much is enough.

Thanks to all for contributing to the debate. Hopefully it was an interesting diversion from the many posts about how to play KK on a rag flop facing a check-raise from the big-blind.

[Wardfish]

Maybe I should have left this section out: I knew someone would cross-examine!

[meow_meow]

I assumed limit, this was NL then?
Makes more sense.