Am I the only one not multitabling?

[MyMindIsGoing]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you grow up playing video games? I think that helps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, I never owned a x-box or whatever, only computers, on gaming were not the nr 1 priority.

[otis_nixon]

If your only going to play one table I recommend quiting and just playing live the games are 10 times easier

[MicroBob]

I definitely think that a video-game background helps.

For those who are 35 or 40-ish and younger one's childhood might have been partly spent accidentally 'in training' for poker-multi-tabling.

Younger generation on the X-Box or Sega and what-not.
I'm 35 so I played lots of Atari (and the old Activision games....I need to get one of those 'retro' video-game things that they're selling now) and was also popping quarters into machines at the arcade (Ms Pac-Man, Centipede, Frogger, Pole Position, Time-Pilot, Galaga, etc etc).



For those 40 and over who might not have been into video-games I think it looks like it is all moving too quickly (for some).


I know an older guy who says he would try playing online, but he watched somebody playing on just 1 table one time it looked 'really really fast'. He couldn't keep up with it (it looks faster than it really is I think because of 4 or 5 players in a row all clicking on auto-fold or check-call or whatever).
But this is a guy who doesn't really understand much poker to begin with.


Some people who learn that I play 3 or 4 tables at a time think I must be some sort of genius to be able to do that....as if I told them that I can play 20 simultaneous chess-matches blind-folded while memorizing the phone-book and solving a rubik's cube with my feet.

Wait? You can memorize the phone book blindfolded?

Teach me.

[UATrewqaz]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you grow up playing video games? I think that helps.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I grew up a crazy mad gamer.

Anyone with a few thousand games of StarCraft (real SC, not that BGH sh!t) under their belt has no problem 6-8 tabling.

[TonySanDiego]

Have I mentioned lately how much I hate multitablers.

I like to play a fast game, but I only want to concentrate on my one table.

I hate waiting on the multitabling jerks who take 40 seconds to fold, then the next multitabling jerk does the same thing because he is to anal to look ahead and fold his 52o.

I am wondering how long it is going to take the major sites to figure out two things.

ONE: Multitabling TAGs (or just plain rocks) deplete the recreational player (AKA fish) pool way too fast. they lose revenue that would be otherwise churned and, therefore, raked multiple times vs once after which the recreational player departs forever and the multitabling jerk pockets the money.

TWO: While we are all waiting on the multitabling jerk to get around to folding, the table is generating zero income. Now it is true that one or two of the players are perhaps generating some rake somewhere else (although it is most likely they are simply folding their way through the tables), the rest of the table is sitting on their thumbs doing NOTHING. An idle table is a table not making any money.

I have enjoyed some instances where there were no laggards, and I am convinced we got in twice to three time as many hands.

Come on poker rooms, get the games speeded up!!!

BTW, did I mention I hated multitablers....

[ QUOTE ]

I hate waiting on the multitabling jerks who take 40 seconds to fold, then the next multitabling jerk does the same thing because he is to anal to look ahead and fold his 52o.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am one of those jerks. If i'm early I will check the auto-buttons, if not I wait to see what everyones done before folding my 52 off. I don't think you can asses how increasing or decreasing multitable limits will affect the revenue of a poker site by "eyeballing" it like you are.

[timprov]

[ QUOTE ]

I hate waiting on the multitabling jerks who take 40 seconds to fold, then the next multitabling jerk does the same thing because he is to anal to look ahead and fold his 52o.


[/ QUOTE ]

These people are certainly extremely annoying, but don't lump all multitablers in with them. Some of us are fast. I wouldn't multitable if it was going to take me more than two or three seconds to act (apart from real decisions) and I use advance action buttons liberally.

If I wasn't so hung up on that, I could probably multitable non-holdem games. As it is I generally just play one at a time.

[Adam22]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I hate waiting on the multitabling jerks who take 40 seconds to fold, then the next multitabling jerk does the same thing because he is to anal to look ahead and fold his 52o.


[/ QUOTE ]

These people are certainly extremely annoying, but don't lump all multitablers in with them. Some of us are fast. I wouldn't multitable if it was going to take me more than two or three seconds to act (apart from real decisions) and I use advance action buttons liberally.

If I wasn't so hung up on that, I could probably multitable non-holdem games. As it is I generally just play one at a time.

[/ QUOTE ]

same here. unless i was in a situation where i had noticed that the blinds were super tight i'd auto fold 52o in any position ( since i wouldn't even try to steal from the sb with it if it was folded around ).

[ QUOTE ]
it seems I just can't learn to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hogwash! Like most things in life, it just takes some practice. As one who just recently began multi-tabling, I'll repeat some advice that others have given. Drop down to a level that is simply meaningless to you financially and play two tables at a time, preferably on a site whose software is slow. If you can find two tables where you can sit in the same (or close to the same) seats, that would also help at first. Use of PAHud or GT+ eases some of the burden of having to follow the action so closely. And, accept the fact that it's ok to make a few mistakes playing more than one table since you'll be getting into the "long-run" more quickly.

BTW, I wish you'd re-consider your desertion from the Computer Technical Help page [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]