Multitabling Philosophy

[dspsphinx]

I've recently decided to try multitabling out. The three times I've tried it makes the outcome (making money, of course) seem successful.

Here's what I'm currently trying..

Instead of playing one .5/1 NL table, I've been playing two .25/.50 NL tables. On the upside, I don't seem to get bored as much with more action. It also seems I chase fewer marginal hands. Downsides are largely unknown, but do include betting on the wrong table (by pressing the enter key just when the other table flashes to the front). Thankfully that lesson was learned after only one encounter.

What does the forum think of multitabling? Do most people prefer to only play one table, and why? For those that multitable, would you recommend playing two .25/.50 NL or four .10/.25 NL tables? What are some other pros/cons of multitabling?

[2283]

i always play 3 .10/.25 tables, sometimes .25/.50 too.

i think you can make a little bit more money 4-tabling .10/.25 than 2-tabling .25/.50. so if, like me, you're all about hourly rate, that might be your best bet.

[DjSkyy]

I find multi tabling to be effective at increasing hourly rate...if you can handle it. I think some people are better than others at being able to think quickly, and it also depends how much experience you have. One of the problems i find with multi tabling is that you sometimes have the tendency to just play like a machine cuz you have to make decisions quickly, and dont spend enough time really thinking about individual situations for your game to grow much.

[gergery]

Multitabling helps my game. I get too bored playing just one game after alittle while, and playing 2 tables keeps me from starting to play bad hands. Two main downsides to multitabling: 1) you can’t focus on much on your opponents, so don’t get as much read on them. But getting reads on people at lowlimits is tough, because they are bad so the range of hands they have is wide – losing this doesn’t bother me that much. 2) you get more mechanical so your game doesn’t develop as much, which is bad if you are relatively new to poker like me. That’s why I’ll analyze my difficult hands after ward and post on 2+2.

Upside is you make more money. I’d try playing the highest levels that you can still make money at.

--G

[dspsphinx]

I think I'm like you in the sense that multitabling seems to minimize my chasing bad hands. Thanks for posting the cons you've encountered so far. In regards to #2, wouldn't you agree that online poker is already mechanical compared to live poker? Do I run the risk of becoming an easy read once my opponents notice I'm multitabling?

Ultimately, I want to make money AND improve my game. If I have to choose between the two, however, I'll settle for making more money. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[dspsphinx]

Thanks for the response. If you're advocating four .10/.25 tables, what is the largest number of tables you'd recommend? I saw a post a while ago that said the poster was running six tables at a time. Is that too many to realistically keep track of? At what point does adding another table stop becoming +EV?

[2283]

i'd draw the line at four. i think three is a little bit better, especially if you get good hands on all your tables, but four is fine. i play at UB where you can only do 3, i'm not sure if i would switch to four or not.

some people might earn extra with five or six, but i don't think it's a great idea.

[sloejack]

There are a few questions I've always had about this practice.

Do you make more playing more than one table like a machine, playing only 'premium' or free (SB/BB) hands than you would really focusing and playing on a single table? If you're playing on multiple tables, can you really pay attention to the players and identify the weak ones that are making mistakes that you could be capitalizing on, or are you folding anything that isn't in your bracket of playable hands?

Secondly, for the effort and work required to track 2 or more tables, are you really playing poker, or are you betting odds? I think it is the later but then again, since this isn't a practice I participate in I'm more posing the question from a personal education perspective.

Finally, focusing on the hourly rate of your chip stack growth, do you think that as people realize you are playing multiple tables that they intentionally limit your earning potential by either not playing when you're in a hand, or making the pot unprofitable for you to play when it's your turn to C/R/F regardless of what you're holding?

My personal opinion thus far is that multi-tabling is pretty much about the worst thing you can do to your poker game. You're participating in one aspect of the game without the benefit of the other aspects that would allow you to play a strong, profitable, game like experience with, and knowledge of, the other players at the table. As mentioned by someone else in this thread, you feel like a bit of a machine, so you're now a poker playing robot. I'm struggling to see how this is fun and truely profitable.

[blargh]

I think I agree with you. When I started playing NLHE poker games online I started at 0.10/0.25 pokerstars, then went to the 0.25/0.50 games. Very quickly I decided to multi-table, 2-3 tables at a time, and maybe once or twice I did four tables. For me, this was an AWFUL decision.

There are a few reasons why I feel my decision was stupid. First, I did not have the bankroll to be doing this (especially given my skill level). So when things ran bad for me THEY RAN REALLY BAD. Secondly, and probably more importantly, this crippled my developement as a poker player. It got me to play like a robot as other posters have mentioned, and when I tried to go back to 1 tabling I seemed frustrated because I wasn't playing as many hands. Also, when things didn't work out I started to play scared which is probably the worst thing you can do in this game.

After a while I dropped down to 0.10/0.25 NLHE, cut out the multi-tabling. I posted on the 2+2 forums, read other peoples post. Tried to learn from my mistakes and improve my game. Also, by doing this I learned about spotting bad players, and what kinds of bad players there were, and what the proper adjustments are to make, which is probably the most crucial for the improvement of my game. Now, I have big enough bankroll that I'm comfortable to go back to 0.25/0.50 NLHE (but only 1 table at a time). Basically what I think this boils down to is the good players can multi-table, but if your new to the game or need to improve your game, multi-tabling is a stupid idea. Not to mention that you miss a chance to get reads on your opponents. Just my 2 cents.

[Lunamondo]

One is easily too busy with four tables, missing something and not getting a line of players as well. With three there is peace too and anything is possible. With two one can see still more, and with one one can get real deep into it. The easier/lower the game the better it is to use more tables, but when it's more demanding one table might make the most sense (might be too slow though), but in case it isn't it would be plain stupid to play just one table.