True viability of multi-tabling?

[jwombles]

I have noticed a number of players here on the forum who multi-table in the small stakes rooms. I am starting to question whether this is as profitable as just choosing the best table with the most optimum conditions and focusing all of your energy on taking it down. I know this is contrary to what a lot of people are doing out there. IMHO I just think that MT’ing really limits your true profit potential. In my experience, multi-tabling 3 tables makes it impossible to truly know the players at each table. I question whether or not you can even do it MTing 2 tables. So much is lost if you are just playing by rote mechanics of what to do w/ a certain hand in a certain position with a certain flop etc.etc.etc.

In my relatively short experience, (I've been playing Party Poker for about 15 months) I have not had the same level of return multi-tabling as I have when I carefully choose the table with which I sit down at. I use both Poker Tracker and Poker Office but have found Poker Office to be the best for determining the table I play at.

When I sign on to Party, I will go to the 3/6 room and open up 3 or 4 tables and sit down at exactly 1. I will have Poker office Live tracker monitoring each table. After about 50 hands or so, I can get a good idea of what the general play is like at the table ie: loose/tight and agro/passive. I’ll then try to sit at the table that has the most ideal conditions I am looking for.

I will after 50-100 hands immediately leave a table if there aren’t more than 2 players over 35% VPIP and ideally one or two fishys over 50%. Sometimes you get a good idea even earlier. Obviously, I don’t want to sit at a tight table so if there are a lot of players sitting there after 50 hands with a VPIP under 20, well, that’s just a waste of time, and I won’t hesitate for a second to leave and find a more optimum table. There’s just not enough money to be made at a table like that.

I am continually amazed at how many fish are playing at some of these tables even at 3/6! It is not that uncommon for me to find tables with 3 or more players at a VPIP over 50% for an extended period of time just throwing a big party! In addition, Poker Office gives you stats on how a player is playing for that table you are currently at, and next to that their historical numbers if you’ve played against them before. I know Poker Tracker does this but you have to constantly enter who is sitting in each chair and it’s a pain.

The numbers I look at on PO are VPIP, PFR% mostly, with an eye on how far a player will play their hand as well.

Anyway, I was just curious what others think out there. I know there are some players who have had success multitabling, and I wish it to continue. I just haven’t seen the same success as when I just carefully choose the table I sit at with a lot of fish and enjoy a nice “Seafood Dinner”!

Much success,
Wombles

[BusterStacks]

I find:
1 table to be boring.
2 tables to be easy
3 tables to be optimal
4 tables to be work.

You give up a slight but increasing edge with each subsequent table, but on a per hour basis, multi-tabling will show a higher profit if you are a winner. It's just a fact. I guess if I had all the time in the world, I could absolutely focus on 1 table, but I need to play 1k hands/day and this would take what, 20 hours 1-tabling? Sorry. In summary, what you give up by adding more tables, especially more than 1, should not affect your play enough to make it a bad idea.

[SinCityGuy]

[ 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.

[Freakin]

Lets just say for example that at a single table you were able to sustain an ungodly 5BB/100 over 100k hands or so. As your add more tables, this would likely decrease. Many players here are able to consistently beat games for 2BB/100 across 2,4,6, or 8+ tables. If you're playing at least 3 tables at 2BB/100, you're easily clearing the 5BB/100 you're making at your single table (since you're playing 3x as fast), and this is a rather extreme example. Programs like PlayerView allow you to have stat-based reads on all players are all tables. Playing more tables is what allows persons with average bankrolls to play professionally. To achieve the same kind of returns on a single table in a B&M, they would have a play a table that is 2,4,6, or 8+ times thier current limit, and that table would likely come with increased difficulty. So no, it's not more efficient for a skilled player to play a single table.

Freakin

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, Poker Office gives you stats on how a player is playing for that table you are currently at, and next to that their historical numbers if you’ve played against them before. I know Poker Tracker does this but you have to constantly enter who is sitting in each chair and it’s a pain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Game Time + in PT will automatically do this, so you don't have to manually enter names.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing more tables is what allows persons with average bankrolls to play professionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

It also allows just average players to make more per hour playing low-limit online than many excellent mid-limit B&M professionals make (for the time being, at least).

[jwombles]

Thanks for your reply. I am not suggessting that MT-ing is a bad idea. A couple of thoughts:

1. Mt-ing 4 tables you might get one good table with the optimum conditions and let's say 2 so-so tables and one tight table on average. It's been my experience that whatever I gain by breaking the good table I would sometimes give back to the tight table and try to make up the difference at the so-so tables.

2. In my experience, MT-ing more than 2 tables you cannot possibly notice any trends at a certain table to take advantage of. There is just too much action going around from table to table.

3. In addition, I think it limits the opportunity to really and truly improve your play against a normal ring game. Sure, I know that a lot of players do well MT-ing here, and that's great. I even tried it for a while.

I just found that , when you have that much going on that you have to start playing mathematically more than on the texture of the different players at your table. And even though this is internet poker, let's not forget that poker is still a people game, and you gain a lot from seeing what each player plays, raises, check raises with etc.

Just some more thoughts.

Wombles

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, I think it limits the opportunity to really and truly improve your play against a normal ring game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

While it's true that you're making mostly rote decisions while multitabling, you still have to be able to process a lot of information simultaneously and make quick decisions. For an experienced multitabler, the B&M game is almost like playing in slow motion. You can make certain decisions without thinking, because you've seen them hundreds of times before. You can then devote your energy and attention to player reads and thinking about your lines of play much more indepth.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Mt-ing 4 tables you might get one good table with the optimum conditions and let's say 2 so-so tables and one tight table on average. It's been my experience that whatever I gain by breaking the good table I would sometimes give back to the tight table and try to make up the difference at the so-so tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do know that you can easily drop a table that sucks while multitabling, right?

[jwombles]

LOL I knew this thread would get a big response.

I was averaging 2 BB / 100 before I tried MT-ing and after trying it for a while it dropped my BB/100 down to 1.5. I just can't take advantage of players when I don't know their tendancies.

As I said, I know that there are 2+2ers who MT and I guess average more than 1 BB per 100 hands. I don't believe that anyone is able to avg. 2bb per 100 at 8 tables. It's hard enough at 1 table. And, if they are doing it, it's a streak that will not last in my opinion.

I can't imagine being able to truly win 2 BB/100 on 8 tables.

PS How do you quote someone in your response?