Playing Multiple Tables

[Damn_Squirrels]

I've 'only' played a few thousand hands online, but am wondering about multiple tables. I'm sure I can eek out slightly more if I concentrate on one table (getting a feel for other players, etc.), but easily get bored and can start to loosen up after a while. So I'm wondering about your opinion(s) on how much one's winning percentage suffers by playing multiple tables vs. focusing on one. I've started to track my game logs, but don't have enough data to determine anything with certainty. What has been your experience with win rates on multiple tables, and when/how did you determine it was profitable?

Help?

PS-I did a search on previous threads to try and find something about this topic, but lost patience after 15 minutes of snooping. If this has been covered before and you could point me to it that would be fine as well.

[Evan]

I think playing 6 tables instead of 4 was the best move I ever made. It kept me a lot more focused since I had less downtime.

[Damn_Squirrels]

I'm talking like 1 versus 2. Is there a beginner forum I should have posted this in??

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

ETA-I assume your inferring that you view the majority of outcome to be based on your skill, not the reading of opponents. Would that be correct? So as soon as I'm secure enough in how I play I shouldn't worry about playing multiple tables and losing out on watching how every opponent plays their cards?

[Stu Pidasso]

You said,

[ QUOTE ]
I concentrate on one table (getting a feel for other players, etc.), but easily get bored and can start to loosen up after a while.

[/ QUOTE ]

and

[ QUOTE ]
I did a search on previous threads to try and find something about this topic, but lost patience after 15 minutes of snooping.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker requires a lot of patience. If this is an attribute you find lacking you might be served by finding another game.

Stu

[Damn_Squirrels]

Very observant aren’t we? I guess there should be an explanation…

1- I’m at work, so searching thread archives to make certain I don’t replicate a recent post was hopefully going to be a quick find…it wasn’t, thus the loss of patience.
2- At a 20% flop seen rate, and many folds after the flop, that doesn’t leave much ‘action’ for one table. I’d hope people can understand why I would want to play more than one table. I was just wondering peoples’ thoughts on the potential loss of efficiency.

[Rudbaeck]

I gained in $$/table when I started multitabling. It got rid of all my bad habits when I got bored. With good notekeeping (PokerTracker) you don't lose all that much.

[HajiShirazu]

Multitabling is fun and profitable and lots of people do it and that makes the games bad. Like has been said, with good use of pokertracker and playerview and note-taking, you don't lose THAT much.
My only prob with it is that it just gets so boring to play one or two tables after you're used to playing four.

[prox]

Depends on how automated your thinking is , how fast you can recognize situations and pot odds without having to actually eyeball and calculate with your fingers. I agree playing multiple tables definitely keeps you in a groove, as you have less time to mull over bad beats and more time playing premium hands. Try two tables and then eventually you'll find that to be too slow. For now, you'll probably find 3+ tables to be mind boggling fast but then 3 will be too slow.. 4 tables will be just right one day.

It just takes experience and playing around 20% flop. Keep in mind that your ability to notice small flaws will decrease, but you should still be able to recognize the fish and bad preflop cards when they showdown.