8-tabling vs 4-tabling

[Salerosa]

I currently 4-table 400 and 600 NL (both 6-max and full ring) and consider myself to be a very good player (of course I'm sure most people consider themselves to be good).

Anyway, on to the point: I am currently very capable of playing multitude of styles successfully (TAG, sLAG, LAG) depending on table conditions. I play very aggressively and pride myself in making very solid reads and sticking to them, and I would hardly consider my play "ABC." I also stopped using GT plus while playing so no PT stats for each player.

Now for the question: For those of you who play 8-tables, how much do you feel your play suffers as a result? I have no trouble handling four tables though sometimes when I get in big hands on two or more tables at once I feel my play suffers, but more often than overwhelmed I find myself bored. In the future I would like to be a winning player at the highest stakes available on the internet, so I want my game to progress and I am not sure if playing alot of tables will hinder this progression. I really don't see myself becoming a rock who sits back and peddles the nuts as a result of playing too many tables, and if I were still playing the 200 tables I wouldn't give it a second thought, but I would just like to hear others experiences before I shell out 5 or 600 dollars on a new monitor.

For clarification, I know I will still be a winning player with added tables. But if I'm making 15 BB/100 (totally arbitrary number) and by switching to 8 tables I start making 8 BB/100, I don't really think the detriment to my play is worth the increase in profit.

BTW I'll probably start out playing 4 6-max and 4 full ring tables if anyone has anything to comment about on that.

[pokerjoker]

At this level if you play this many tables I would be amazed if u can be a winning player. Playing LAG+SLAG requires really good hand reading abilities. The more tables you play the worse your hand reading abilities will be. I don't think these games are beatable (or if they are not by a big margin) just playing the ABC poker that would be neccessary to 8 table.

I don't see why you wouldn't move up to $1000 NL if u are going to 8 table $400+600.

If u do decide to add more tables do it one at a time.

[Salerosa]

Several posters on here 8 table these stakes and higher. I believe KKF used to 8 table 2000 NL. My go-to style is not LAG btw, rather TAG or sLAG. However it baffles me the number of "good" players who are not capable of adjusting to table conditions and can only play one style profitably. This is what I do not want to become.

And as for why I don't play 4 1000 tables, if I were to start 8 tabling I would 8 table the 1000 games too when I move up. I've had to withdraw over 10k in the last few weeks to handle some personal and legal matters, so that is in part why I don't play the 1000 games (I'm a winning player over the 1500 hands I have played at this level). And I'm making more than enough money on the tables I'm at so I'm not in a rush to move up yet.

[pokerjoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Several posters on here 8 table these stakes and higher. I believe KKF used to 8 table 2000 NL. My go-to style is not LAG btw, rather TAG or sLAG. However it baffles me the number of "good" players who are not capable of adjusting to table conditions and can only play one style profitably. This is what I do not want to become.

And as for why I don't play 4 1000 tables, if I were to start 8 tabling I would 8 table the 1000 games too when I move up. I've had to withdraw over 10k in the last few weeks to handle some personal and legal matters, so that is in part why I don't play the 1000 games (I'm a winning player over the 1500 hands I have played at this level). And I'm making more than enough money on the tables I'm at so I'm not in a rush to move up yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we are thinking of the same post KKF said he used to play 8 tables of 200NL.

I guess I am not saying it is impossible but let me put it this way. If you can make 5PT bb/hr 4 tabling 1000NL you would need to make 10PT bb/hr if u played 8 tables that are half 400NL and half 600NL to match that. It sounds like ur skills and style would be more suited to larger games than 8 tabling, since your reads would suffer.

It just seems to me that 1000NL would be more fun/ profitable. If you add 4 tables of 400-600 theres a good chance you will have a downswing. At least move up slowly.

If you do decide to 8 table 400-600 I would love to hear a report after you have done this for awhile on the differences in your game/winrate compared to 4 tabling.

Best of luck though. If you can handle this you will have impressed me quite a bit, I hope it works out.

-Pokerjoker

[yvesaint]

i dont think i could 8-table unless i was playing completely ABC/nutpeddling poker

4-5 tables, fine, but 8? actually to tell you the truth, i havent even tried 8-tabling, i dont have 2 monitors.

[ahnuld]

I have one monitor and my standard is 5-7 tables on party. Need to get another one. 7 tables sometimes gives me problems but 6 is easy once you get the hang of it. Im no rock either, my stats are prob. 23/9 when playing 6 max. So im definitly not lag but not as rockish as those guys with 4% prf. You can still make good reads and creative lines, but it just takes up all your focus. When I play 6-7 tables, I cant talk on the phone or do anything on the web.

I think you could do it, just make the dwitch slowly, add a table every week until ur no longer bored.

[beset7]

I graphed one of my databases the other day. It has about 90k hands of 6max from .5/1 up to 2/4. I can spot the stretches where I tried to 8-table quite easy. They are characterized by 6-10k hand break-even stretches. But, that may just be my defect. I think it's really hard to play more then 3 or 4 short-handed tables and not leave a ton of money on the table.

[rwanger]

I vote for the "move up" option also.

You say it isn't an option, but why not just move up 1 of your tables?

If your goal is to play in the highest limits available, the way to do it is by moving up, not by compromising your play at lower limits to "build a bankroll". Playing strong at 4 tables and building a bankroll that way will make you much more ready for each successive level. If you're a solid winner, it won't take you that long to have the appropriate roll to play comfortably at the next level.

Good luck.

[Raven]

One of my friend did 8-tabling in the 1000 nl and the 600 nl. He won at first (he is a long term winner), but after that he went in a downsing that got him down to 200 nl. It may be variance, but 8-tabling surely did not help him.

For myself I usually play 4 table of 600 nl 6-max and manage to browse web and chat at the same time. I think I could add up two more tables but thats it. I'm mostly sure my play would suffer and I'm playing a tag style (20/10). But I'm thinking of adding another table.

As for moving up, when I see those winrate threads in the high section I sometimes wonder if I would really make much more by the hour playing 5/10, but I will surely try it in 1-2 months.

[illunious]

I usually plan on playing 4 tables (mostly SH $100), but if I'm on great tables and there's more juicy (loose/big avg pot) games available, I'll add more up to 8. After 4, I find it impossible to not play tighter/ABCer than normal, but if all my games are great like this, ABC isn't a bad thing to be, and it's definitely more profitable to be on as many as I can handle.

I doubt you'll be able to get solid reads on 8 tables (I definitely can't). A HUD would probably help you a lot with 8.

A 2nd monitor is still worth the money even if you play 4 tables. Extra space for lobbys, web browser, observing tables is real nice to have.