multi-tabling stud???

[mosta]

hold em players aspire to playing at least 8 tables online? omaha, usually more like 4, I would think. what about stud. does anyone play more than 2 tables at a time?? is 2 a stretch, at higher limits/ tougher games?

[Bartholow]

I play 2 stud and 2 holdem a lot. The holdem tables take so little attention that this is ok. I'm sure I don't keep track of cards as well as I would, but that's part of the cost of doing business.

[mosta]

I don't know what happened to my punctuation...

[BeerMoney]

It's an individual thing. I am only able to play one at a time. Others on here are able to play 3 or 4.

FWIW, although I think there are more good hold em players, I think stud players are more aware of what's going on at their tables. A lot of the time I will follow a maniac from a stud table to a hold em table. The stud players are always fully aware of what's going on, while the players at the hold 'em tables don't catch on as quickly, and I attribute that to multitabling. As a result, I am able to isolate the maniac much easier at the hold 'em than stud tables.

[perfecto]

I can play 4 hold'em at a time with absolutely no problem.

However, I don't even attempt more than 1 stud at a time.

Stud moves fast, especially at the higher limits and there's an incredible wealth of information to be obtained if you pay attention.

I'm willing to believe that there are a few talented souls who can effectively play more than one stud game at a time. But they are far outnumbered by those who believe they can but really can't.

I suspect that most of those stud players who claim to be able to multi-table effectively are either delusional or are basing their conclusions on statistically insignificant runs of dumb luck.

In fact, seeing multi-tabling stud players on the game list is almost as much of an enticement for me to join that game as is seeing a bunch of my fishy buddy-list members playing together in a game.

[nate1729]

Stud's actually easier to multitable at the low-limits, I think. The big problem is that you won't be able to easily keep track of the folded upcards, but as long as you keep track of how live your hand is on third street, you're not giving up too much, compared to how much you make by playing the extra tables. I think stud is easier to multitable because, against unskilled or mildly skilled opponents, you can play quite a bit more mechanically, relying less on player-dependent reads.

By the way, limit omaha would be much more multitablable than limit hold'em.

--Nate

[perfecto]

[ QUOTE ]
Stud's actually easier to multitable at the low-limits, I think. [ QUOTE ]



OK. That's just dumb. Please don't waste our time with such statements.

[Michael Davis]

"OK. That's just dumb. Please don't waste our time with such statements."

Well, I think it's clearly wrong, but 8-tabling low limit stud isn't impossible. You need to pay most attention to your own dead cards on 3rd street, especially with pairs.

Sure, you're going to lose something not remembering the cards that come out in the hand, and not being able to pay much attention to your opponents, and having no clue how the other cards out affect your opponents' hands (because you are definitely not committing time to this). But that doesn't mean that adding more tables against incompetent opponents isn't more profitable than playing less tables better.

The mistakes that your extra opponents will make are many, and will more than make up for the relatively small mistakes you make as a result of multitabling.

Since we're folding most hands on 3rd street, it will be rare when we are involved in three hands at once. Even if this happens, we can just ignore the hands where we are the bring-in with complete garbage.

-Michael

[Bartholow]

Ok, I also think that saying stud is easier to multitable is probably wrong, BUT: who's wasting our time here? The guy with an opinion and some stuff to say, or the guy who writes a one-liner criticizing someone else?

[Steve565]

At the low levels, I am able to play 3 tables (1/2 or 2/4, mostly on Poker Room) and think I am better off than if I was just playing a single table.

Since I'm folding a lot of the time, when I get a good starting hand, I can easliy sit out of another game (or games) and focus on the one.

Clearly I'm sloppier than if I just played one table, but I'm not great anyway, so I prefer getting 3 times the amount of decent starting hands. Especially with the low antes on those games and the spped of the games.

But I agree with the earlier poster, I think it's a very individual thing.