Multi tabling sharks may not kill this thing after all. (Long)

[surfdoc]

Spending time and effort talking about ways to defeat multitabling tight aggressive players at this limit is almost as futile as actually trying to do it. Goodguy is so right on in this thread its not even funny.

[bicyclekick]

I'm not specifically refering to multi-tablers...but rather TAG's that suck (which usually happen to be multi-tablers)...

As you move up in limits, more and more of the money comes from those tags that have good stats, yet don't actually play well. Obviously the loose-aggressive and loose-passive are the most profitable, but you'd be suprised how many big mistakes good appearing players make. I know I make plenty of mistakes myself. I just don't think the game quality suffers as much as you think.

[PotatoStew]

Does anyone have a guess as to what percentage of serious multitablers (consistently plays three or more tables) are also 2+2 posters?

[goodguy_1]

look at the waitlists in whatever game you are interested in..you will see all the same names once you play the same game enough..most multittablers are game selective and will put themselves on waitlists w/the biggest pot averages.Most fellow multitablers I know are constantly on 4-8 waitlists.If Party has 40 $3-6 games going maybe 12-18 regular multi-tablers are at work..but this is peak hours.Assuming 3 8 hour shifts where you have an average of ~15 heavy multitablers(which could be a half-dozen high considering how slow Party is for about 1/3 of the day)playing you may have 45 mtablers but I'm just extrapolating from my time slot and I'm talking serious mult-tablers guys I see playing everday at 3-4 tables.The thing is many of these multi-tablers play shorter time increments than 8 hours say 4hours so maybe you have 50-75 or so just at this one limit 24/7/365 overall..just a guestimate.Im sure a very high percentage of serious mtablers are 2+2'ers...I'd guess at least 90%.

[bicyclekick]

1 person in 10 per table. So maybe 1 in 7 multitablers. (just a guess). There are many who have heard of 2+2 or mb read a few times but don't actively participate.

[goodguy_1]

If you look at the total pool of games at any limit you will see that most mtablers you see day in day out put themselves on waiting lists of the best 15-20% of games.If there are 40 tables and you assume that most mtablers are on waitlists(which is really NOT that accurate because some mtablers are content to just play and not table hop like most-they are the exception thu)I think you could assume that on average those 40 tables had 7 or 8 players at each table-thats is total pool of possible 280-320 players.So regualr multitablers may only be 5-8% of the total player pool at any one time period...but the problem is mtablers congregate in the best games where pot averages are highest you will see an inordinately high % of multitablers in those good games to my chagrin often 50%-60%..when this happens the games almost always degrade quickly unless there are 1 or 2 action donkeys...
I think 1 in 7 is high when you look at the total pool of games.If you table-hop and try and always play in those best games you will have 20%- 50% of your table comprised of mtablers soon enough...I think we tend to over-estimate the number of mtablers because most of us try to always play in the best games -the same games mtablers swarm to.If you just randomly choose games with no thought to game quality you would see much fewer mtabling sharks obviously.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
If you look at the total pool of games at any limit you will see that most mtablers you see day in day out put themselves on waiting lists of the best 15-20% of games.If there are 40 tables and you asssume that most mtablers are on waitlists(which is really NOT that accurate because some mtablers are content to just play and not table hop like most-they are the exception thu)I htink you could assume that on average those 40 tables had 7 or 8 players at each table-thats is total pool of possible 280-320 players.So regualr multitablers may only be 5-8% of the total player pool at any one time period...but the problem is mtablers congregate in the best games where pot averages are highest you will see an inordinately high % of multitablers in those good games to my chagrin often 50%-60%..when this happens the games almost always degrade quickly unless there are 1 or 2 action donkeys...

[/ QUOTE ]

I have stopped using the waiting lists at Party for this reason.

Usually if I see a table with 12 people on the waiting list and the rest of the tables have 4-5; it is pretty safe to say there are a few people on line for that specific table.

What are the chances that the game will still be "good", by the time that I am seated? I would think probably no better than hopping around random tables looking for a good game. My table selection at party involves grabbing the first possible seats, taking a couple orbits, then moving if the game is full of TA-X types. Usually within a half hour I have found some decent to great games.

At the smaller sites I will use the waiting list.

[bicyclekick]

Getting on the long waiting lists is a waste of time.

[goodguy_1]

[ QUOTE ]
Getting on the long waiting lists is a waste of time.


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree in general but this is not always true especially at Party where in smaller games you can have 1 or 2 donkeys that will just go off and make a game good for hours--this happens alot.For me at the limits I play the best way to get in good games efficiently is to just use the shotgun approach put your name on all of the best games.The best games to be waitlisted on are those games right on the cusp of your minimal pot average guidelines -there are usually less than 3-6 players IF you scan games often enough.It's annoying and distracting when you are constantly getting invites for games but you get used to it.

[dankhank]

the 'multitablers are mostly weak players' theory that's espoused early in this thread isn't getting the consideration it deserves, imo. must be a lot of multitablers responding. speaking from personal experience, i have a wealthy friend with a decent amount of poker experience who started playing online a few months ago, tried to 1-2 table 15/30 level games for awhile, and then started 8 tabling and "just playing monsters". i can only assume he did this because it seemed _easier_ than playing 1-2 tables of more solid, all around poker.

he gave up online poker pretty quickly but that is beside the point. i've been playing online for almost two years and i have never considered playing eight tables. this guy considers doing it from the very beginning. i know i'm a much better player than him. this difference frames my feelings about 8-tablers vs. lowly winning 2-tablers like myself nicely.

it seems to me that the 2+2 forums have major philosophical trends that shift over time and the conscientous lurker needs to be smart enough to avoid what at times can be a tidal wave of bad advice that masquerades as the proper 2+2 way of playing poker. at this point one trend seems to be prioritizing quantity of tables over quality. the speed/weakness of online play makes this possible and rakeback/bonus makes it even more worthwhile.

well, since 2bb/100 is a nice rate at 15/30, and considering i can almost always count _at least_ 2bb's worth of mistakes for every hour i play at every table, i really don't see how a person 8-tabling can be playing all that good of poker. and by good i mean doing all the little things that contributes to being a consistent winning player, ie studying/reacting to opponents, changing gears, and thinking through a hand fully enough to value bet middle pair on the river or whatever.

i have played in b+m's with multitabling 2+2ers and i find many of them making mistakes i never would, such as betting the turn when a raise/check-raise seemed very possible and then paying off an opponent's monster for two extra bets. whereas if i had played the hand i would've taken an angelo-style defensive line and saved myself those two bb's. not because i know the guy has a monster (when we _know_ something the 8-tabler and i play the same), but because the texture of the hand indicates he might.

the multitabler has a conveyor belt playing style that, while it is tough for me to personally get money from him, is not impressive and doesn't seem particularly profitable for that player. on the other hand when i think about it abstractly, playing 4-8 tables and nut peddling doesn't seem hard and does seem profitable.

why not try it out? because i am playing two tables and getting better all the time. maybe i should look forward to the day when online games dry up because of tag multitablers. then those same people are forced to go against me at a single table of higher limit games where my extra edges can extract a winning rate. the fact that they'll be bored out of their skulls waiting to play a hand can only help me too.

of course if you are an awesome player who can play 4 (8? really?) tables at a near-optimal level then you shouldn't be doing anything but that. but my poker experience tells me that this can't be more than 10% (if that) of the multitabling population.