Multi tabling sharks may not kill this thing after all. (Long)

[Zetack]

Random thoughts...

I used to be worried about the effect all the 2+2 multitabler's would have on the game, particularly at my current 3/6 limit.

My thinking was this, when I first started hanging out at 2+2 not so many folks were seriously multi-tabling. Slowly you saw the goal becoming to multi table...then to four table. That use to be a big deal. Now the goal seems to be to get up to 6-8 tables or more. And more people are making that.

And once a player learns how to do that they certainly aren't going to forget. And over time (my thinking has gone) more players discover 2+2, learn how to play, learn how to multi-table and you start to get a schooling effect.

If good player only plays one or two tables there is a lot of capacity to absorb them. But there are only so many good tables around and if a player can be on eight of them, it doesn't take many players to kill all the good tables. And over time, even if only a small percentage of 2+2's become winning multitablers, well a small percentage over a long period of time equals a lot of tough multi-tablers.

So I've thought this was a major problem. Particularly because, in my view, the lifeblood of online poker is not the uberfish that we all love, its the mediocre player. You know the one who has some grasp of the game but is just a bit too loose PF, who raises just a bit too infreqently, who chases occaissionally, or make a loose call or two here and there. The kind of person who loses maybe .5 or .75 BB's per hundred over time.

This is the kind of guy who maybe drops a few hundred a month but keeps coming back forever.

The mediocre player is the one who is particularly hurt by having too many good players around. To the really bad player it makes no difference, they're losing all their money quickly anyway. The mediocre player benefits from having a lot of other mediocre or bad players around and really suffers from having a lot of good players around.

Anyway, my new hypothesis is that perhaps this problem won't be as bad as I've thought. For one thing at most low levels, eventually the muti-tablers are just passing through on their way up the limit level (but beware 15/30...the schooling may stop there).

Also my assumption has been that once there players are gonna keep being there. But now I'm thinking it's likely we will llose a lot of players or at least player hours over time. Witness what happened to Bison. Not that he's never playing again, but how often is he gonna put in a 30k hand month now? And I suspect many "pros" will move on eventually. Not all obviously but many. And for the semi-pro's or part timers sooner or later either the obsession will fade or life will catch up to them. The guy that plays 20 hours a week after his job right now, may evenutually have the wife who needs attention, the kids that need...well, everything...and find themselve maybe going through spurts of playing a lot and days and weeks of not playing at all, or drifting away from the game altogether.

So anyway, my new theory is that we may see enough of an exodus from the game over time to offset the new obsessive multi-tablers that we're gonna keep seeing.

Its a theory anyway. What do y'all think?

--Zetack

[Yobz]

I like your theories, how can I subscribe to your magazine? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[DCWGaming]

I'm not saying this just to gloat, I honestly don't think most people have the capacity to play more than 5-6 tables at a time without seriously hurting their game. Someone on these forums wrote that before, and i'd credit him if my memory were good for anything other than cards... Was it sidekick? it might have been him.

There are exceptions, of course. I've seen 16 tablers, talked to quite a few 12 tablers, and heard of a couple regular 20 tablers. It seems like there are alot of us because we'll gloat and post screenshots of our extra wide/huge screens on the forums, but I think it's safe to say that much less than 5% of 2+2ers regularly run more than 4 tables at a time. As far as partypoker is concerned, my guess would be less than 1% run more than 4 tables simultaneously.

As far as the masses being educated and the tables being diluted with multitabling trout... It's possible, but like always, the cream will float to the top. The best players will adapt, maybe lower their # of tables, and play better than the multitablers. If the tables become seriously loaded with TAGs, my guess is that an anti-TAG strategy will emerge that gives you an edge against a room full of 15/9s.

Just my thoughts on the subject. I like your idea though, its an angle i've never really thought of before.

[Michael Davis]

"my guess is that an anti-TAG strategy will emerge that gives you an edge against a room full of 15/9s."

Not really. You may be able to exploit certain postflop players through high-risk turn raise bluffs and such, but for the most part it just isn't worth the time exploiting otherwise good players when you're playing for 3 and 6 dollars. If you want to play higher limits where earning a small bet an hour is real money it is.

-Michael

[cnfuzzd]

my guess is that a substantial portion of 2+2ers who feel they are currently beating the game are not long term winners without improvement, and that multitabling exacerbates the rate of loss. However, given rakeback and the generally swingy nature of poker, most of these players wont realize it for quite awhile, and usually frustration will set in long before they reach that point. Ive watched many budding young stars come into 2+2, and not very many stick around.

What i think is really fueling this influx of multitabling tags is rakeback. And, for many, as long as they are guarenteed the "profit" of rakeback, the impetus to improve their game to where they are truly a force at the table simply isnt there. I think multitabling encourages lazy poker, and allows us to both gloss over our leaks and gives many of us a sense of over-confidence that is easily exploitable.

For the record i am almost always playing at least 8 tables.

peace

john nickle

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
my guess is that a substantial portion of 2+2ers who feel they are currently beating the game are not long term winners without improvement

[/ QUOTE ]
This is true, but 2+2ers who are losing are generally losing less than the sorts of fish who would be there otherwise. A huge chunk of your profit can come from having the super fish in your game. That twelve-tabling twoplustwoers in your game slowly bleeding off money is wasting a seat that he could be in.

[helpmeout]

Most multitablers are fairly weak players who are looking to increase their earn with rakeback.

I'm not worried about people who want to play 6-8 tables they usually have an average winrate and suffer from burnout.

These guys play pretty much ABC so once you have a good read on them you can make some funky moves and run over them. By the time they adjust to you changing gears you would have changed gears again.

Their table selection sucks as well so while someone playing 2-4 tables can quickly move to a good game some guy playing 8 tables cant quickly keep an eye on all the weak players.

Some really good players can make it work but most dont.

They play too many tables they no longer improve and their winrate slowly goes down they eventually lose focus, get fed up and quit.

[Emmitt2222]

I tried to play more than 4 tables last night and it just made me sick because, although I know it would take adjustment, I think I would be giving up too much to do 8 tables. I just hated having to stay at a mediocre table instead of trying to find a better table because it was inconvenient. I really like to practice good table selection and that isn't possible with 8 tables. I also think my play became so ABC that it was hurting me. With 4 tables I do have some OK reads, but with 8 there practically are none other than TAG, LAG, LPP. I think these super mega multitablers are leaving some money on the table and when your opponents make mistakes you profit, even if its a much smaller profit than from the fish. So basically, to actually reply to your post, I think that they won't be around as long and won't make as much money so I don't have to worry about them quite as much.

[AncientPC]

Develop a shorthand note taking system.

Learn to read through HH's faster.

[goodguy_1]

[ QUOTE ]
I used to be worried about the effect all the 2+2 multitabler's would have on the game, particularly at my current 3/6 limit.


[/ QUOTE ] You should still be worried about the effect multi-tablers have on $3-6LHE

this is what happens just as you said [ QUOTE ]
..there are only so many good tables around and if a player can be on eight of them, it doesn't take many players to kill all the good tables. And over time, even if only a small percentage of 2+2's become winning multitablers, well a small percentage over a long period of time equals a lot of tough multi-tablers.

[/ QUOTE ]This can not be good for the games.This is a major problem if you are a pro and you diligently try and stay in or get in the best games.What is happening now is so many more multi-tablers are trying to get in the same "good games" so fast that the games are often sucked dry of action in shorter and shorter time periods..this is a major problem because it makes it much harder to find and stay in good games with high pot averages.