Play two tables or move up a buy-in?

[mart_ph]

What would people recommend...
a) play two $5 tables, or
b) play one $10?

Does playing two tables even out the fall of the cards quicker, or does the drop in being able to read payers when playing two tables (due to the amount that's going on when you get to the bubble) mean that moving to a $10 table is more favourable?

[zephyr]

If you can think reasonably quickly, playing two tables is no more difficult than playing one. If you have the bankroll I'd move to playing 2 $10 tables.

Only my opinion,

Zephyr

[Paul2432]

[ QUOTE ]
What would people recommend...
a) play two $5 tables, or
b) play one $10?

Does playing two tables even out the fall of the cards quicker, or does the drop in being able to read payers when playing two tables (due to the amount that's going on when you get to the bubble) mean that moving to a $10 table is more favourable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing two tables is not difficult assuming you have a reasonable screen resolution. If your ROI is the same at both levels, playing two tables of the lower level will entail less risk for the same return. However, this is due to the fact that your are playing a lower limit, not because you are playing two tables at once. Whether games are played in parallel or series has no effect on risk of ruin (assuming no deterioration in ROI).

If you happen to be playing at a site with a 5+1 and 10+1 fee structure, then be much more inclined to play the one table at $10.

Paul

[Guy F]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing two tables is not difficult assuming you have a reasonable screen resolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious here - what's your screen res? I'm at 1024x768 (one monitor) and two (PS) tables overlap about half of each other. Indeed, there's so much overlap that I doubt even 1280x1024 would be sufficient for a single monitor. It's not especially uncomfortable for me now, but I was curious how much of each table you can see on your monitor and how that affects your play.

[tigerite]

I use 1600x1200 and you can fit 4 party tables onto that, just about..

[MrMon]

This is so obvious, screen resolution has nothing to do with it. When you can reduce the rake, do so. (Assuming this is the common $5+1, $10+1 structure.) When someone hands you a dollar, take it. Only when the rake is equal do things like reduced ROI from multitabling, increased competition, etc. come into play.

That $1 is -10% ROI you just eliminated. What would those of us at the $20 and $30 games do to increase our ROI by 10%? There'd be a lot of children for sale on eBay, I suspect. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[rjb03]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing two tables is not difficult assuming you have a reasonable screen resolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious here - what's your screen res? I'm at 1024x768 (one monitor) and two (PS) tables overlap about half of each other. Indeed, there's so much overlap that I doubt even 1280x1024 would be sufficient for a single monitor. It's not especially uncomfortable for me now, but I was curious how much of each table you can see on your monitor and how that affects your play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try it out. At 1280x1024 you should be fine as the second table only overlaps the part of the table with no information (on pokerstars). You can see the table and all the players at each if you keep the bottom table on top.

[eastbay]

Never play $5+1, period. The 20% vig is robbery. Doesn't anybody read the FAQ?

eastbay