Low winrate? Painful downswings? Then dont ......................... - Page 2

TheMetetron · #11 08-08-2005, 03:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
sthief plays like 8 tables of 10/20 with a VP$IP of 30 or somesuch and is winning more than 3BB/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

This man is my god and I now have a new goal. I was going to be content with 4-tabling the $10/20 for 3 BB/100. Apparently, there is more to strive for in that game.

Anyways, 2-tabling is stupidity. If you are comfortable and a winner in the game, and you enjoy money, play 4-tables. Apaprently, I should be playing more though.

Catt · #12 08-08-2005, 04:09 PM

Hmmmm. I wasn't clear in my post or you didn't read it carefully. I stated that I usually play only 2 or sometimes 3 tables out of personal preference or personal limitations, but that I essentially vehemently disagreed with the OP's assertions about the "best" way to play short-handed. Basically, in contrast to the OP's point, I think there are lots of folks who can play 4+ tables and still develop outstanding reads, concentrate on each table, and play very well. I am not one of them, but they are out there and I was reacting to the "this is universally the best way to improve one's game or play better" tone of the OP. If I could play 4 tables well, I'd be playing four tables. And when I can play 4 tables well, I will be playing four tables.

Silverback · #13 08-08-2005, 04:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
sthief plays like 8 tables of 10/20 with a VP$IP of 30 or somesuch and is winning more than 3BB/100. It can be done. Maybe not by everyone, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

This I would very much doubt. He appears in the thread about "ever feel like giving up" with his quote
[ QUOTE ]
me too. it's frustrating. we always want to be better than we are and win more than we do. keeping our success in perspective is difficult, as there's always someone to make our accomplishments look small.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not the talk of someone 8 tabling and winning 3bb/100

Silverback · #14 08-08-2005, 04:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And when I can play 4 tables well, I will be playing four tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you up your game to 4 tables or would you instead up your limits and still play 2 tables?

sammy_g · #15 08-08-2005, 04:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sthief plays like 8 tables of 10/20 with a VP$IP of 30 or somesuch and is winning more than 3BB/100. It can be done. Maybe not by everyone, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

This I would very much doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. He plays only 6 tables:

link 1

Here is his graph:

link 2

I'm really jealous.

sammy_g · #16 08-08-2005, 04:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Would you up your game to 4 tables or would you instead up your limits and still play 2 tables?

[/ QUOTE ]
It is much easier beating 5/10 for 3BB/100 playing four tables than 10/20 for 3BB/100 playing two tables.

Silverback · #17 08-08-2005, 04:34 PM

Yeah good stats, but I knew there was a huge difference between 6 and 8 tables, also he states in a post in the same thread 50% of his play was 4 tabling.

Also this guy datamines 24/7 and no doubt uses that info to choose very wisely his tables. He is the extreme. He is one of the very few who can perform this well over 80k hands.

wonkadaddy · #18 08-08-2005, 04:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]

His reasoning might not be totally correct, but theoretically you do need a higer bankroll to 4 table due to the decreased winrate..

[/ QUOTE ]

bankroll needs are more affected by std dev. than win rate which might actually be lower with a tighter multitabling strategy.

Silverback · #19 08-08-2005, 04:54 PM

Your post is very specifically aimed at myself.

Im happy playing 2 tables. Im happy with my winrate. Im also striving to be a better player and feel I personally can do this playing 2 tables as I have more time to think over marginal decisions, decisions which some of the best players have already seen hundreds of time and can make in an instant.

My post was primarily aimed at those players who have a low winrate, actually complain they have a low winrate and also whine about downswings. It wasnt aimed at those killing the game.

Bob T. · #20 08-08-2005, 05:03 PM

I agree with a lot of the things that silverback said.

For most of last year, I was beating the 5/10 full and short games handily, and early this year, I decided that I wanted to move from playing 2 tables most of the time to playing 4 tables most of the time.

As I was doing this, I found that I wasn't winning as much money, and I experienced a long period of fairly flat results. I didn't actually have losing months, but at the same time, I wasn't winning as much as I had in the past. Maybe I was just running bad, or maybe there was more to it.

I felt like some of the time, I was getting outplayed, and some of the time, I was making mistakes just based on time pressure, or unfamiliarity with my opponents.

In an effort to get my confidence back, I moved back down to 3-6, and I found that playing 3-6 with 2 or 3 tables, I had a lot of time on my hands, because the decisions that I was faced with were a lot simpler than the ones at 5/10 or 10/20. Go figure [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

Anyway, I started playing four tables of 3/6, and I found that I was quite comfortable, and was able to maintain my winrate 4 tabling that game.

Eventually, I started mixing in a table of 5/10, and or a table of shorthanded, and I still feel like I am playing a reasonable game, and making reads and plays based on my opponents.

I anticipate over the next few months, that I will be comfortable playing more tables at 5/10, and more shorthanded tables while still 4 tabling.

I think that like anything else, the switch to 4 tables takes some acclimation, and you might ease the process by moving down a level while you are doing it, so that you aren't faced with as tough as decisions while you are doing the acclimation.

I also think that my game selection has become a little better, because I am picking games from 3/6 full and shorthanded, and 5/10 full and shorthanded, so I have a better selection of games to cherry pick from.