Long Term +EV

[roundhouse]

It has to be two tables. Two main reasons:
(i) To be successful at the higher limits you have to get good at reading hands, bluffing and general trickery - I don't care how good you are at 8-tabling, you're not going to have the same opportunity to practice these skills as you would at two tables.
(ii) 8-tabling and playing 400+ hands an hour, how are you going to handle the switch to 30 hands an hour live? Would you have the discipline not to loosen up and play -EV hands just for the sake of action?

I should caveat this by saying I have absolutely no experience of the aspirational stakes you mention, but my 2c anyway.

RH

[masonx]

i would 6-8table untill you got 10/20 or maybe 5/10 (6m you shouldnt really be playing more than 4 tables because you play so many more) Everytime i moved up a limit after that i wouldnt play more than 2 tables until i started consistantly playing well at that limit. The worst thing to happen is to take a shot at a new limit, 8 table, find out that you are going to get run over and have it cost you 50-100BB's

[bicyclekick]

I've averaged 3.74 tables at a time this year according to poker tracker.

Playing 2 is a little to few(except when I'm playing really high, then I play like 2 so I can really focus), 3 is good esp if short-handed, 4-6 is great if you only have 1 or maybe 2 short goin. 6 is best if they're all full tables. Sopmetimes the game selection isn't there at the higher limits so that's another reason the # is lower.

At the lower limits (including 15/30) I'd be playing 6. I've always said 8 is too many for a ton of reasons. Stints your growth, I actually think it's -EV over 6 tables, you burn out quicker...

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
Who will reach their goal first of being a consistant winner at 100-200 or higher? The 2 tabler or 8 tabler?

[/ QUOTE ]

The 8 tabler will have the bankroll a lot sooner, and he can always drop to 2 when he gets there. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]