Re: Winning the Most on the Internet

[Mr. Graff]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, whether I am going to take the advice or not, I would rather read something semi-new like this than the Dude's article which said nothing that hasn't been said before in pretty much every poker book ever written.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. For me the Dude's article was the most valueable read of them all.

[fyodor]

First let me say that the article was not written by me or about me. I don't play that way. I am not interested in playing that way. I am attempting to get better so I can move up in limits and make money the old fashion way - out playing my opponents.

That said, what is incorrect about his premise? If one's goal is not to get better, but simply to make money, does the author not have a somewhat valid point here? It's pretty straightforward math is it not?

Given your winrate per 100 hands goes down for every table you add while your hands per hour goes up, you just have to find the point where you are making the max per hour. That's why most people here 4 table. Also don't forget to factor in rakeback.

The author contends he will make more 10 tabling when he has basically zero time to think, then if he 5 tabled and spent time reading his opponents.

No he is not concerned with perfect poker; his only concern is how much can he make per hour. What is incorrect about that?

[fyodor]

The Dude's article was well written. Try this experiment though. Go to your poker library. Close your eyes. Pick a book at random. Open your eyes and see if there is a chapter on hand reading. Odds are there is.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
Try this experiment though. Go to your poker library. Close your eyes. Pick a book at random. Open your eyes and see if there is a chapter on hand reading. Odds are there is.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right. But my goal wasn't to write something that's never been written before, it was to write something the readers on this forum needed to hear. That said, I really enjoy reading an essay on a new topic, and this topic had potential. There's a lot of validity in developing the skill of playing more tables. Hell, I myself 8-table and am considering upgrading my hardware to accomodate more.

But this author ruined it with (not just bad, but) really God-awful, terrible advice. Saying things like "In most games you will find on the Internet, treating all opponents, as one generic opponent is sufficient," and "You have aces, there are three cards on board, and you have the option to raise. Well, maybe another option is better, but can you really spend the time getting enough information to make a better decision?" are completely inexcusable. The article is consumed with terrible application and flawed thinking that it is detrimental to any small-stakes player who tries to apply what he reads. He'd be better off trying to figure it out on his own.

[Mr. Graff]

[ QUOTE ]

The author contends he will make more 10 tabling when he has basically zero time to think, then if he 5 tabled and spent time reading his opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]
A maniac, who is normally very profitable to play against, becomes a real threat to such a player because he has no time for reads meaning the maniac will be able to push him off marginal hands and steal pratically every pot he is in. This could easily take a significant portion of the otherwise increased earnings.

[Terry]

I am stunned by the negative response to this article.

Of course people who are playing multiple games aren’t learning how to beat bigger games; I’ve posted on that subject myself. While it’s not specifically stated in the article, I think it must be assumed as a given. He is not telling you how to learn to play better poker, he is telling you how to make the most money you can with the knowledge you already have at the level you can already beat.

I applaud the author for his logical and deep thinking. I also applaud 2+2 for recognizing and publishing something that superficially seems to go against the common wisdom.

[phish]

I too am surprised at all the negative reaction this article has gotten. When I first read it, I thought it was the best article in the March magazine. Now I've never done anything close to 8-tabling, though I have done three. And even w/ 3 tables, you don't have a lot of time to focus on who you're playing against. All you can hope to do is have the best general strategy that you can, and apply it. And I think that's all he's saying: if you want to make the most money at say the 5/10 limit, you should develop the best general strategy that you can and multi-table. If your strategy is good enough, you should be able to make more per hour than much better players playing 30/60 even. You won't ever get better this way to move up, but if your sole concern is to maximize your win-rate, then this may be the way to go.
Also, please keep in mind that not everyone is capable of developing into a great enough player to crush the 100/200 games. Beating those games requires different skills than beating the 5/10 game. There may well be people who can make a ton of money multi-tabling at 5/10, who could never, no matter how hard they try, beat the 100/200 game for very much. For example, most important skills for the 5/10 game may be playing tight, not chasing without the proper odds, and betting for value. For the 100/200 game (many of which are played short-handed), the most important skills may be reading hands, aggression, and knowing your players (knowing who's willing to fold on the turn for a checkraise, for example).
I know many players who can play a solid mathematical game but yet who can seem to master (or even understand) the skills/concepts necessary to beat the bigger games. For those guys, this article presents the best advice for making money at internet poker.

[skp]

I too found the article to ne nowhere as bad as The Dude makes it out to be.

It has some novel ideas all based on the premise that playing as many hands as you can on auto-pilot translates to greater profits than playing fewer hands but with greater thought.

That may or may not be true but I am not sure that the fact that it may not be true detracts from the value of the article.

And FWIW, Piers has posted here on 2+2 and he generally posts good stuff.

[jrz1972]

Yeah I thought this was actually a pretty good article. I have no intention of ever 10-tabling microlimits, but if a player were doing that (and I know many do), the author's advice seems pretty sound.

A lot of the people who are criticizing this article seem to assume that everybody wants to eventually move up to $20-$40. That's not the case. I like the fact that 2+2 caters to a broad audience and tosses in an occasional article like this one that is specifically adressed to microlimit multitablers.

I would have thought the author's point (at low limits, its better to make a bunch of decisions per hour even if it means reducing your EV on each individual decision) would be uncontroversial. Go figure.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I applaud the author for his logical and deep thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

What?!!?

I'm just confused.
Most of the quoted advice is not sound.

[ QUOTE ]
-In most games you will find on the Internet, treating all opponents, as one generic opponent is sufficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

No matter how you look at it, this isn't the right way to approach playing.