True viability of multi-tabling?

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]

This misses a very important point about making money playing poker. A 2BB/100 player requires a MUCH HIGHER bankroll than a 4BB/100 or 5BB/100 player. This is because fluctuations are a function of both your standard deviation and your hourly (or per hand) rate.

So, if you can afford to play three tables at 2BB/100 you would probably be as well of playing 4+BB/100 at a limit of 150% or higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, no. What makes you think that a player that can win 2BB/100 at a lower limit can make 4BB/100 at a higher limit simply by focusing on one table? That is very unlikely. In fact, if he is an expert who can make 4BB/100 (if such a think is possible) at the higher limit, than he can probably make 3-4BB/100 multitabling at the lower limit. Plus he will need a smaller banroll (in $ terms) to multi-table at the lower limit.



[ QUOTE ]


'Bad' is not that precise of a player classification. Even at the low limits, Some people slow play to much, some people rarely bluff or semi-bluff, some poeple check-raise a lot, some people are steaming, and others are small time grinders MTing, who actually aren't playing half badly.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you think an expert can't keep track of all this while multitabling? I think you underestimate the cognitive capacity of an expert. Plus he can take notes to remember this stuff.

[ QUOTE ]

An expert takes full advantage of this knowlegde, saving and making extra bets which add up to quite a lot. However, I do not believe there are many (if any) EXPERTS playing more than one table. For one thing, nobody can develope these expert skills from playing more than one table. Additionally, anyone who has the gift for developing these skills (and has put in the practice) most likely has a true love of the game. These people are apt to be more easilly bored by having to play automatically (instead of expertly) and probably do not find it boring at all to sit and watch one game and learn.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree that it is tough to develop skills while multitabling, it is not impossible. Most people develop thier skills away from the table when they are reviewing their play or talking to other players. If you play in live games and also multitable online, there is no reason why one cannot become an expert.

[ QUOTE ]

So, If you are not at the expert level, but you can consistently make GOOD decisions, then you are better of MTing. You will not benefit enough from studying your opponents or moving to tougher limits. However, if you want to become an expert you will need practice thinking harder about many "easy" decisions, and watching more than three hands to study an opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

An expert should be able to size up their opponents very quickly and adjust their play. I never suggested that you should watch only 3 hands, but that is enough to give you a read. After that you should continue to watch the player and learn more about him.

By the way, I don't think I'm an expert.

[bonanz]

[ QUOTE ]
There, I just saved you all 5 minutes [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL
but who will save impressionable young minds from all the faulty logic argued throughout this thread?

also nobody (at least from what i read) pointed out sample size of multitabling and how winrate stats don't matter hourly varaince increase while multitabling etc etc etc

i would probably be safe in assuming that the op had a very small sample of playing multiple tables so how could he really know how it affects his bb/100 stat.

[Sarge85]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my experience, multi-tabling 3 tables makes it impossible to truly know the players at each table.

[/ QUOTE ]

At lower limits, this is irrelevant. The preponderance of bad players more than makes up for the lack of player knowledge.

If you have the ability to multitable, you're losing a lot of profit by just playing on one table at the lower limits, even with the increased focus.

[/ QUOTE ]

I give a resounding "second" to this post.

Sarge[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

[joker122]

appreciate it, jeff.

[jwombles]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Maybe so, I don't know b/c I can't verify it. I think that anyone who can focus on 8 tables and average 2 bb/100 might just be a genius, or hitting a run of great cards or something, no offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

astroglide posted his 3/6 stats a while back, IIRC it was 6 tabling and more than 100k hands, and his rate was > 3BB/100. it's far from impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is amazing. I saw lunious (I think that was his name, it's the guy with the space suit helmet avatar) post stats on 150k hands at .5/1 with a 4BB! Not sure if he was MT-ing or not.

Anyway, I read here that expecting a win rate of more than 2 BB / hour is unrealistic over the long term. But, maybe that's just in the higher stakes. I must not be good enough to keep up a high win rate mt-ing yet. All signs would point to this.

I admire those of you who can do it and have been doing it. I had always heard that the goal of a good poker player is 1BB/ hour. That's it. More than that and you're doing great. So KUDOS!

Thanks for your responses, as it has given me a lot to think about:

1. I am not a very good poker player! At least at MT-ing right now. I should be able to MT and make more money net off of 2-3 tables than I would net off of 1. It's been my recent experience that this doesn't hold true for me if I focus on finding 1 table that's optimum to take down and really work that one over.

2. I need to consider buying another monitor if I am going to try MT-ing again.

3. I guess I could focus first on trying to find as many optimum tables at once and MT 3 or 4 of those.

I had in the past when MT-ing joined the first 3 tables available and sat down to go to work. I just wanted to offer my thoughts on how I choose the best table to work and if it can carry over into MT-ing even better.

Maybe there isn't enough emphasis on table selection as there is on just the fact you should MT so many tables and you will win this many extra BB/hour b/c you see many more hands/hour.

This forum is immeasurably helpful and I'm glad to have found a home here!

Much success,
Wombles

[Stinos Dude]

Ok, i know poker is a game and moreso a gambling game. But for those of you that find 1 table poker boring, you really need to evaluate what you're doing. Poker is not a means to financial success. Overtime, it just doesn't happen for the vast vast majority of people. Knowing this, why would you spend so much time in front of a computer with 5 games going, like crazed dogs, just waiting for that stellar hand that pulls in a quick buck... you all deserve more in your life than that, trust me... fact is, you could earn 10x the amount of money you earn in one sitting with 5 tables open if you just spent the same amount of time doing something productive, like work.

On a lighter note, multi-tabling was never possible until the internet... why ruin a game by populating the player field with money-grubbing fools who dont even put their minds into each game, but rather wait to see pocket aces come up on one of their 5 screens going at once?

I dont mean to offend anyone, just my thoughts on the poor direction the game is headed. Live games to me are still the way to go. Fun, sociable (at least you're not best friends with your computer and mouse), and you learn how to play real poker, which involves the visuals and other stuff that come with a live experience.

anyone else share a simliar viewpoint on multi-tabling?

just wondering...

-d

[SomethingClever]

Sounds like you're coming to some good conclusions. The "1 BB/hr" standard comes from B&M play, which is slower than online table for table (30 vs 55 hands per hour). Add those extra tables, and if you're a solid player, 3 BB/100 at .5/1 should be very, very doable. I'm crushing that rate, and I play 4 tables.

Build the tables up slowly. Don't go from one to four. Try two for 5-10 thousand hands and see how you like it.

It's also helpful to change your display resolution when you have multiple tables going so there's no overlap.

Good luck and keep studying.

[SomethingClever]

B&M isn't going away, if that's what you're worried about. And it sounds like you don't really know how to play.

[Stinos Dude]

how can you deduce that i dont know how to play poker from my post. please provide your reasoning. your post made me laugh.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
also nobody (at least from what i read) pointed out sample size of multitabling and how winrate stats don't matter hourly varaince increase while multitabling etc etc etc

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll try to sum it up for you here.

A good 30/60 B&M player will make about $60 per hour, with a standard deviation of about $600 per hour. He can expect to have occasional downswings of $10,000.

A good 3/6 internet multitabler with a rake rebate can make $60 per hour with a standard deviation of about $180 per hour. He can expect to have occasional downswings of $1,000.