4-tabling vs 2-tabling

[aslowjoe]

I play 3 at once.I find the fourth table takes away a lot. Your 4th table you have open is not as juicy , your reads are a little more imprecise. For me just a tad more rushed. To me the difference between 2 and 3 would be very slim. Between 3 and 4 has to cost me at least 1BB/100 probably more.

[donger]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not as adept at multitabling as many of you. Four tables of 3/6 full was a strain for me and I often just played three.

Now that I've moved up to 5/10 6-max I find that two tables are easy while three tables is a strain. I'm working on it and expect to master it eventually.

One big advantage to playing less tables is I almost always have awesome tables. I have time to search and I can afford to cherry pick the very best because I don't need many.

I also find that I have a decent feel for what is going on at each table. I make a special point of watching the 1 or 2 players per table that don't have stats and I also notice players who aren't following their "script". For example, last night I made a lot of extra money because I almost immediately noticed when the big loose/passive fish "adjusted" to me. He started donking my PFRs on the flop and taking stabs heads up on the river. I think most multitabling automatons would have lost some pots before they caught on. But I check a lot of hole cards and I saw some of his flop bets before the first river shot came.

It's really a very personal thing. I need to think more than some players but I get a lot of value out of that thought. Other players are less good but can reproduce their decent play over many tables with little loss of quality. I think of it as video game talent and if it works for them they should do it.

Winning poker players understand and respect their strengths and weaknesses. The worst thing you can do is try to be something you are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post. I'm the same in almost all respects, and I had been feeling a little inadequate for it. Have you thought about trying to practice at lower limits to get used to the pace? I was thinking about trying to 4-table 1/2 or 3/6 just to get used to the (perceived) frantic pace.

[Rudis]

Also, I want to point out that:
1. 10/20 is looser. (2.5-3 vpip on avg)
2. It's more aggressive, with more tactical raising and more semibluffreraising, c/r.
3. The rake is almost 0.75BB/100 less.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not lacking the balls. I played blackjack full time for about 4 years when I got out of college. That game is more brutal on an average day than poker could EVER be. The bankroll swings make poker swings look nonexistent. It's just that the $100/hour that I am making right now is very meaningful money to me. I can dramatically change my financial world if I just maintain my current rate for the rest of the year. My intention is to pile up plenty of cash and then move up, not to take a shot but to stay--no matter how long it takes to learn. I wake up in cold sweats at night afraid that somehow internet poker is going to be gone overnight. I would want to run over myself with my car if I moved up and spun my wheels adjusting for a couple of months and then suddenly the game was gone. I think this is severe paranoia, however, and I appreciate you blasting my ass.

Cartman

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the thing. Moving up and trying to stay there is not the best way to approach moving up limits. I think it's much much better to take a shot, play 1K hands. There are several things that can happen.

1. You run well and get to stay.
2. You get to know the differences between the limits so you know what to work on at 5/10.

What happens if you move up and try and stay there?

1. You run well.
2. You run badly, lose confidence, start doubting yourself and potentially damage your game.

I basically wait until I run well to move up. I keep taking shots and dropping down until I have a good streak.

Krishan

[pyroponic]

It surprises me how much trouble people seem to have playing four tables. I just assumed everyone here has played at least four at lower limits ($0.5/1 - $3/6) before moving up. 8-tabling full ring makes 4-tabling 6-max look like a cakewalk in my opinion, mainly because finding tables and rotating them is much much easier.

[me454555]

If your playing 10 tables, you can't possibly be improving. You're reacting and exploiting the easy situations in the game. The tougher situations require thinking and analysis that playing 10 tables doesn't allow.

[pyroponic]

What about 4 tables?

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
If your playing 10 tables, you can't possibly be improving. You're reacting and exploiting the easy situations in the game. The tougher situations require thinking and analysis that playing 10 tables doesn't allow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

Krishan

[OrianasDaad]

It depends entirely on what portion of that players' winrate is derived from the extra attention two tables gets over four.

[lefty rosen]

I'm too lazy to not get severe overlap at 4 tables. Basically I can play 3 with severe overlap and have decent reads on every player. I don't use poker tracker and wont bother with 4 unless I get it or bother to adjust my monitor. The only players I can play with confidence at 4 are the rocks that I have notes on the rest are stabs in the dark.......