Value of multi-tabling ? (LONG)

[Wardfish]

I have played online on-and-off for about 4 years and recently the number of players multi-tabling has increased dramatically.

I currently play mostly on Prima at 2/4 full ring (although I will help to start a new table) and I find that if there are 3 full tables going at this limit, at least 3 or 4 of the players will be playing at all 3 tables.

I have dabbled with multi-tabling but have not really enjoyed the experience. I have felt under pressure to make decisions before I am ready and have felt as though I was only able to play my own cards, rather than play the opponent and his cards.

When I play against the multi-tablers I usually feel as though I know where I am in a hand with them, and take quite a bit of money from them, as I'm sure I can read them better than they can read me.

My question is this:

IS MULTI-TABLING REALLY AS PROFITABLE AS PEOPLE MAKE OUT?

The points I can see AGAINST multi-tabling are as follows:

1. Difficulty of analysis at the table
2. Relatively high bankroll requirements
(in relation to win-rate per table)
3. Difficult to IMPROVE 'player-playing' ability, as opposed to 'card-playing' ability - when games get tougher will the skills to adapt be there?
4. Stress caused by speed of response required must be mentally draining
5. ABC nature of play required
6. Game / seat selection may suffer at the desire to play the required number of tables
7. Boredom - to me, it seems like the multi-tablers existence is grim, almost like being on a treadmill.

I played 'professionally' for 3-4 months last summer when I lost my job. At that time there was less multi-tabling around than I see now, and less players, but I was happy for the most part playing 2/4 full(ish) table, for 25-30hrs per week, clearing $2000 per week after allowing for bankroll growth.

How many hours do you guys play and how much do you clear?

Would you enjoy the game more if you only played one table?

Could you make the same amount of money, playing less hours, on one table with better game / seat selection and a smaller bankroll? How would this affect the rest of your non-poker playing day?

BTW, I realise this is a one-eyed view of the multi-table strategy, so feel free to convince me otherwise.

[captZEEbo1]

1. Difficulty of analysis at the table
I don't have trouble analyzing a situation because I play a bunch of tables, I just analyze quicker.

2. Relatively high bankroll requirements
(in relation to win-rate per table)
What are you talking about? Are you saying since winrate goes down, SD goes up, therefore higher bankroll requirements? I'm way overrolled anyways, so it doesn't matter.

3. Difficult to IMPROVE 'player-playing' ability, as opposed to 'card-playing' ability - when games get tougher will the skills to adapt be there?
This is true.

4. Stress caused by speed of response required must be mentally draining
I am not stressed playing many tables.

5. ABC nature of play required
Again, not true. Maybe some people that multitable just setmine, but I LAG multitable.

6. Game / seat selection may suffer at the desire to play the required number of tables
Just because I'm playing many tables doesn't mean I don't know if a table is good or not.

7. Boredom - to me, it seems like the multi-tablers existence is grim, almost like being on a treadmill.
It's more fun IMO. It's really boring playing just 1.



How many hours do you guys play and how much do you clear?
A shitload for both questions.

Would you enjoy the game more if you only played one table?
Hell no. Well sometimes playing one table of high stakes HU is tolerable, but other than that, no.

Could you make the same amount of money, playing less hours, on one table with better game / seat selection and a smaller bankroll? How would this affect the rest of your non-poker playing day?
No. The rest of my day I would be crying over all the money I lost playing only 1 table.

When I play against the multi-tablers I usually feel as though I know where I am in a hand with them, and take quite a bit of money from them, as I'm sure I can read them better than they can read me.
Probably b/c they suck at poker, and not because you are getting way better e-reads on them.

[hit_the_set]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you make the same amount of money, playing less hours, on one table with better game / seat selection and a smaller bankroll? How would this affect the rest of your non-poker playing day?


[/ QUOTE ]

good posts. I am curious to know what the average PTBB/100(rough figure) for multitablers is. I dont play much and whenever I do play, I play 2 tables only of NL2k on party. I believe its less stressful and the variance is also less. But then again I have been playing poker for only 6 months now. I have logged 20k hands since the party 2k tables started.

[edge]

I think the people who are good at multitabling just think really quickly. I play 4 tables, and I rarely miss something important. If I miss a hand as it's played out, I'll check the instant HH and I can still get my read. All 4 tables fit on one screen, so I have no problem deciding what to look at; when I played 6-8 I found I missed too much by shifting from monitor to monitor. Most of my decisions are made in well under 5 seconds, so I pretty much never time out (except at Crypto where there is no warning beep). I don't really play standard 2+2 ABC and I never practiced table selection to begin with.

Poker is boring to me though; I'll freely admit it. I play because I like money and sometimes I enjoy the thinking aspect. Grinding away 4 hours each day isn't something I can do; I tried during the summer and ended up averaging about 25-30k hands per month. That's playing full-time. I enjoy poker a lot more when I play short sessions of under 2 hours, and when I don't play more than a few times a week.

[ QUOTE ]
good posts. I am curious to know what the average PTBB/100(rough figure) for multitablers is. I dont play much and whenever I do play, I play 2 tables only of NL2k on party. I believe its less stressful and the variance is also less. But then again I have been playing poker for only 6 months now. I have logged 20k hands since the party 2k tables started.

[/ QUOTE ]

If my multitabling winrate is lower than my single table winrate, it's a very small difference. I really don't feel like I miss a lot when I run 4 tables.

[Wardfish]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the people who are good at multitabling just think really quickly. I play 4 tables, and I rarely miss something important.

If my multitabling winrate is lower than my single table winrate, it's a very small difference. I really don't feel like I miss a lot when I run 4 tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

I gotta give you credit where its due here. Maybe its something I can't do, but others can.

Hey, that's life.

[edge]

Note my really short attention span. Maybe I overdo it and burn my brain out when I spaz-table. I simply cannot play long sessions.

[Leptyne]

In the past month or so I have noticed a dramatic increase in the number of multi-tablers, specifically going from single to two tables. Since I'm a single table I have time to check all the opp. on GT+. Us singles are becoming the minority.

[Vish]

I've been 4 tabling as long as I've been playing poker for a living. The last few months I've tried to single or two table in an effort to improve my game and pay more attention to other players. I started losing like crazy. I'd pull too many LAG moves out of boredom or because I had a "read." I've learned that it takes a lot of hands with someone to develop a good enough read to run them over. People can surprise you easily if you don't know them perfectly. Multitabling makes it much harder to tilt.

[hit_the_set]

[ QUOTE ]
Multitabling makes it much harder to tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? I beg to disagree with this statement. Its so much more easier to tilt when you are multitabling.

[PugX]

If I play only one table I'm beeing so bored that I start do other things like surfing the web or watching TV.

It's not good, but it is what happens.

//Pug