|
|
#11
12-03-2004, 02:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: True viability of multi-tabling?
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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? [/ QUOTE ] But when you are MTing, honestly, you don't have the time to truly analyze the table and realize it sucks until you are down enough to think it's time to leave. 
|
|
#12
12-03-2004, 02:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: True viability of multi-tabling?
[ QUOTE ]
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. [/ QUOTE ] With all due respect, 2BB/100 isn't that spectacular of a win rate for online poker. It's equivalent to about 0.6BB/hr for B&M play. I can assure you that there are many people playing four to eight online tables making over 2BB/100.
|
|
#13
12-03-2004, 02:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: True viability of multi-tabling?
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] I absolutely disagree with it being irrelevant to know the players at your table at lower limits. Sure, there are a lot of fish out there on the lower limits. But to assume that it is irrelevant to know the players at any table you are playing at is wreckless IMHO.
|
|
#14
12-03-2004, 02:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: True viability of multi-tabling?
[ QUOTE ]
I find: 1 table to be boring. 2 tables to be easy 3 tables to be optimal 4 tables to be work. [/ QUOTE ] I find: 1 table to be mind-numbingly boring 2 tables to be extremely boring 3 tables to be boring 4 tables to be okay 5 tables to be fun 6 tables to be perfect Once you go multi, you'll never go back! Doesn't rhyme, but you get the picture.
|
|
#15
12-03-2004, 02:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: True viability of multi-tabling?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 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. [/ QUOTE ] With all due respect, 2BB/100 isn't that spectacular of a win rate for online poker. It's equivalent to about 0.6BB/hr for B&M play. I can assure you that there are many people playing four to eight online tables making over 2BB/100. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe so, I don't know b/c I can't verify it. I think that anyone who can focus on 8 tables and average 2 bb/100 might just be a genius, or hitting a run of great cards or something, no offense. Getting back to the main point of the thread, my goal is not to go bug eyed mt-ing 4-8 tables at micro limits, but to move up to higher limit tables. I feel that the best way for me to do this is to focus on one table and getting to know how to read playedrs etc. And btw, there is no way that anyone with 8 tables open on their computer is doing anything other than rote mechanics of check call raise w/o any regard to the type of players at the table. There simply isn't enough time! You would be folded out of the other 4 or 5 tables you were playing at. Which, gets me back to the point that when you are doing more than 3 or 4 tables, you are really out of touch with what's truly going on in the game if there are a couple of experienced players at that table paying attention.
|
|
#16
12-03-2004, 02:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: True viability of multi-tabling?
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] How do you get it to automatically recognize the players at the table? When I use it I have to put their names in manually.
|
|
#17
12-03-2004, 02:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: True viability of multi-tabling?
[ QUOTE ]
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. [/ QUOTE ] Think about what you just said here. Nobody is disputing that your BB/100 will drop when multi-tabling. However, your hourly rate will increase. If your BB/100 went down from 2 to 1.5 when you played two tables, then you're still making 50% more money per hour, because you're playing twice as many hands. By your own numbers, your results have gotten better through multi-tabling, not worse.
|
|
#18
12-03-2004, 02:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: True viability of multi-tabling?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 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. [/ QUOTE ] Think about what you just said here. Nobody is disputing that your BB/100 will drop when multi-tabling. However, your hourly rate will increase. If your BB/100 went down from 2 to 1.5 when you played two tables, then you're still making 50% more money per hour, because you're playing twice as many hands. By your own numbers, your results have gotten better through multi-tabling, not worse. [/ QUOTE ] Sure. Got your point there. I guess I should clarify. I wasn't making the same amount of money per day that I am now focusing on one table. The BB/100 dropping but still being positive doesn't mean I was still making money when it includes stats from when I was single tabling. Not the best stat to use to prove my point b/c it wasn't exclusive to MT-ing.
|
|
#19
12-03-2004, 02:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: True viability of multi-tabling?
[ QUOTE ]
I absolutely disagree with it being irrelevant to know the players at your table at lower limits. Sure, there are a lot of fish out there on the lower limits. But to assume that it is irrelevant to know the players at any table you are playing at is wreckless IMHO. [/ QUOTE ] Actually, it is important to know who the good players are, and this is relatively easy through data mining. Once you have identified them, the games are fairly easy to navigate through.
|
|
#20
12-03-2004, 03:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: True viability of multi-tabling?
[ QUOTE ]
But when you are MTing, honestly, you don't have the time to truly analyze the table and realize it sucks until you are down enough to think it's time to leave. [/ QUOTE ] Nah, just pay attention to how many players are limping. If it keeps getting folded around, it's not a good table. And I also use PokerTracker's note exporter to remind me which players are loose, which are aggressive, which are tight, etc... If multitabling isn't for you, no big deal. But to say it's not "viable" for others is silly.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
