Have u tried playing 1 table?

[punter11235]

I play 1table from time to time but only 6max and much higher than I usually do.

Best wishes

[subzero]

[ QUOTE ]
Meh, PT reads aren't really reads. They help some, but they aren't reads.
OP is not talking about effeciency. He is talking about improvement.

[/ QUOTE ]
I see a guy on Stars who is 15/0/2 over 1000+ hands. That tells me something about him.

[vulturesrow]

I was a chess player too, so I understand that analogy you are trying to make. But I dont think it applies. First off, in chess, there are usually a lot more things to work through in any given move. Secondly, what aspects of your game is blitz good for? One answer is quicker recognition of tactical combinations. This is basically what I am arguing in favor of by seeing lots of hands.

That said, from time to time playing one table is probably a good thing. But in general, at low stakes, I think you gaina lot more from learning to play more tables.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
I see a guy on Stars who is 15/0/2 over 1000+ hands. That tells me something about him.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it does. All I'm saying is you would know more about his play if you actually watched him for those 1000 hands instead of let PT watch him. You would also have a better read of his play postflop, which is important in NL since the bets get bigger on the later streets.

I'm not saying PT isn't useful. I'm just saying you learn more from observing your opponents' betting patterns than simply looking at PT numbers. Tools like PT/HUDs can breed laziness, which in turn slows improvement.

Edit: I just want to say again this thread is about improvement, not efficiency. You can make more playing 4 tables and using PT for reads, no question. You just don't learn as quickly that way.

Ultimately your goal should be to play in bigger games. You might make more money now always playing four or six tables, but there is an opportunity cost attached.

[subzero]

Good points (I totally agree). I play 50 and 100NL. I want to play higher limits, but I need to multitable to build my bankroll some more. I know I'll have to really study the tables at the higher limits. Now, I do try to pick one of my tables and study it (the other tables are more on auto-pilot with Tracker and GT+).

[sammy_g]

I agree and disagree.

Back to chess for a moment. I'm not sure blitz is really the fastest way to develop tactical vision. Doing chess puzzles away from the board is best for that. Similarly, examing the EV of different moves in poker away from the table might be best for developing an intuition for poker tactics. But maybe I am getting off topic.

I do agree it helps hand reading if you play lots of hands, look at lots of flops of different textures, and get to lots of showdowns. More tables helps you do this faster. You can get years of B&M experience in months online. Of course if you go overboard, you will be playing too many tables to truly process what you are seeing.

Another thing that might actually help many NL players is playing a lot of shorthanded LIMIT holdem (my main game). Since you get to showdown so often, you get a feel for how often certain hands are best quickly.

But sometimes you need to take your foot off the gas and just sit at one table and think about every decision. What does he have? What does he think I have? What does he think I think he has? NLHE features so much subtlety and nuance. How do you see it all when playing six tables and going 100 MPH?

You don't need to think this deeply to beat the small stakes Party games, but as you move up each rung, your opponents become more sophisticated. You need to think at higher levels to beat them.

Sometimes play just one table and focus. Don't play for the $$$, but play to improve. Get better. Move up.

[ QUOTE ]
That said, from time to time playing one table is probably a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
So maybe we agree.

I'm probably just bitter because multitabling TAGs using PT and HUDs to profile opponents does not seem like what poker should be.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm probably just bitter because multitabling TAGs using PT and HUDs to profile opponents does not seem like what poker should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. This is exactly why most posters here dont like people who buy in short either (along with the fact that they cant make much coin off them if they know how to play a short stack correctly). I like poker, its a fun game, and I enjoy talking about all the strategic nuances, etc. But at the end of the day, why am I playing poker almost exclusively now (and not chess much any more for instance)? Because I can make money at it. I dont really care about what poker "should be". So multitabling offers me the best point of winning money and getting better.

[IamLeach]

I concur. While I also find it to be terribly boring I think that one table play can help with a lot of things. ie. Patience, Discipline, and reading skills. I get a little crazy at more than one table so the single table thing does help.

[Niwa]

Well said but I need a bigger bankroll to move up in stakes so its a little bit of both.

I'm really surprised by the responses. As you add tables, your efficiency at playing WILL go down. However, your monetary gain will usually go up, until you reach a certain breakpoint where more tables start making you play worse since you don't have time to think about your decisions thoroughly, etc. While making money is good, you should really step down to 1 or 2 tables and really try to improve your game WITHOUT relying on PT for reads, since PT doesn't tell you that "he always bets when checked to" or other useful information. Being able to combine your own reads about players on 4 tables(or however many tables you play) is necessary to maximize your winnings.