Six screens of happiness.

[Freudian]

Agreed. If someone is going to six-table this is a clearly superior alternative. It is much more expensive of course but much easier on the eyes.

Seems stupid to be impressed by those who have 12 tables on 4 monitors but berate those who have 6 tables on 6 monitors.

[Subby]

Count me in the "that's pretty effing cool" crowd...

Besides, six-tabling is the new eight-tabling.

[Yobz]

[ QUOTE ]
In typical zoo "dick" fashion, you people have managed to piss on someone's parade. Why does anyone care how he chooses to utilize his setup? Perhaps many of you are just jealous of the fact that he actually HAS a 6-monitor setup. You people are truly something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

His setup is awesome, but its like someone having a Ferrari and not taking it out of first gear.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone is going to six-table this is a clearly superior alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]


I disagree.
If someone is going to 12 or 24-table then this would be the better way to go.


[ QUOTE ]
It is much more expensive of course but much easier on the eyes.

[/ QUOTE ]


Much easier on the eyes in a way very similar to sitting in the very front row of the movie theatre....or maybe sitting 4 inches away from my 41-inch TV screen to watch the football game.
(I have to sit near the back of the movie theatre because of my eyes).


If he wants to play 6-tables from across the room then this would be the way to do it I suppose.
And actually that might not be too shabby.

6-tables on 6-screens...and just to the right of that is the TV with the game on or whatever...and I'm just sitting back on the couch with a drink getting my hands in.


But if he's actually sitting at the desk this does not look very enticing.



All of the internet-Tilt-guy comments were predictable....but were still pretty funny.

[afk]

Perhaps he just has the 6 tables up as a demonstration and is not actually playing 6 tables this way?

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

But if he's actually sitting at the desk this does not look very enticing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nor does having four big monitors with 12 tables on them. Anyone playing like that will constantly have to tilt their head upwards, which is as much strain on the neck as this guy will have.


I think this is a simple case of him not doing what the cool forum kids are doing, so people have a go at him.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps he just has the 6 tables up as a demonstration and is not actually playing 6 tables this way?

[/ QUOTE ]


That occured to me as well.....but it's more fun to just rip on him.

[Supersetoy]

[ QUOTE ]
wow, you could probably get in like, two, three thousand hands a week with a setup like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can get in 3000 hands in two days 4 tabling on one monitor.
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[B00T]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you always go with the most expensive and least efficient option?

[/ QUOTE ]

2 Dell 2001FP = ~$1100
1 Vid card capable of 2 monitors $60

6 crappy 15" LCD's you can pick up for around $60 each, $360 total.
3 Vid cards capable of 2 monitors = $180

It is actually a hell of a lot cheaper option. Extremely inefficient like you said, but I dont see why people are slamming the expensive route when it is the opposite.

Don't get me wrong, it is ghetto as hell, but costwise he probably paid less than most of us.

[MicroBob]

This was a reference to the idiot geeky internet-poker guy from the TV show Tilt.

The guy had 3 monitors in his crappy apartment....all set up to different computers (so he had 3 different mice and 3 different keyboard I believe).

He bragged that he could play 'up to 2,000 or 3,000 hands a week'. Most of us laughed when we saw that because, like you, we know that bragging about such a low number of hands was silly.
It was just one of many aspects of poker that the TV show did not get correct.


This guy's 6 monitor set-up is VERY reminiscent of that scene from the TV show.