Maybe something to try.

[Bob T.]

I've been running so-so for a couple of weeks. Not anything bad enough to whine about. But at the same time not anything to brag about either. Just a lot of sessionns, where I really get surprised a couple of times at a showdown. 'Did I really fold that winner', or 'when should I have figured out that I was that far behind?' Enough, so that I thought that I might not be playing that well.

Anyway, the other day, I decided to try something. For 24 hours, I would not play more than one table, but I was going to try to know everything I could about every player at my table. Every time there was a showdown, I was going to check the hand history as soon as possible and figure out how they got to the showdown, and what mistakes, or good plays they made along the way. I was also going to think a lot about the adjustments that I was going to make when any player entered the pot.

Well for that period, I played on four tables, posted four wins. I also played one small tournament, and placed second, although when it was headsup I had my opponent all-in twice while he was drawing, so even though I came in second, I think I played well enough to win. One of the tables I played on, I only won a small amount, but I realized that the table dynamic was wrong for me(strong aggressive players on my right, and weak loose behind me), and I escaped without letting them do a lot of damage to me.

Anyway, during my 24 hour experiment, I found that I was making a lot of plays that I wouldn't usually make, based on the reads that I developed by paying more attention.

The day after I single tabled, I played two tables, and I thought that the game was a lot simpler, and a lot clearer than it had been for me for a while. I also made a couple of reads that allowed me to make or save an extra bet or two.

I don't plan on single tabling a lot in the future, but I think that playing that way occasionally, can help get your game straightened out and back on track.

Maybe I was just running good for the last couple of days, but I think that I was also playing better, and getting the most out of the good things that happened to me.

Good luck,
play well,

Bob T.

[BigEndian]

Great feedback Bob. I think most people feel they get too bored when they single table (or only dual table even). There's not enough action.

Most of the time I 2-4 table depending on the stakes and how tough the tables are and what my goals are for the evening. When I 2-table, I do pretty much what you're talking about. I pay attention to each and every player in as much detail as I understand how.

I don't know if it makes me a better poker player, it certainly doesn't make me as much money as 4+ tables at once. But I find it more interesting and I feel like I learn something.

- Jim

[Bob T.]

I also usually play between 2-4 tables, depending on the site, my mood, and how many potentially good tables I can find. I find that as I get up to four tables, I tend to be playing 'bot' poker. I think part of my so-so run, was that I was just getting a little stale, so that by playing one, and playing the hell out of it, I might break out of that staleness. It seemed to work for me.

I don't know if it makes me a better poker player, it certainly doesn't make me as much money as 4+ tables at once. But I find it more interesting and I feel like I learn something.

Learning soemthing should make you a better poker player [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]. Hopefully, being a better poker player makes you more money in the long run.

later,

Bob T.

[QTip]

I've played 8 tables for some time, but mostly at the microlevels and 2/4. Once I got to the 3/6 level, I started only playing 4 tables for several reasons. Of course, I felt I needed to concentrate a bit more. Also, the games there can take ridiculous shifts from loose to crazy tight, and good games don't seem to stay together as long at that level.

Anyway, I really like your idea, and I was thinking about it on the way to work this morning. I've been learning more about the math of the game, and I know there's a lot I need to learn to start making better decisions at the table. There's no way I'm going to accomplish this while I'm playing 4 tables..it's just not going to happen. At some point, I'm going to play 1 table for a while. The thing that makes it hard for me is that I don't get a lot of hours to play anyway, and when I do play, it's pretty important for me to make as much as possible while I'm at it. But, you're right, it will make me a better player, and when I do go back to 4 tables, it should make my winrate that much better.

[MoreWineII]

Bob, from that day that you single-tabled, do you have any specific examples of hands you played differently?

Just 100% pure curiosity on my part.

One of my concerns is that I don't keep notes as often and as detailed as I should. I have about 15% of UB's players labelled as simply "bad". I'm wondering how much keeping more detailed notes would really help. Such as "likes to bluff-raise the river against one or two players" "cold-calls early posiion raises with any suited ace"...stuff like that.

Like most of us I'm sure, I get lazy on my notes sometimes.

[ZootMurph]

I do the same thing ocassionally. Usually, I move up a limit or sometimes two when I single table. Most often, I four table 2/4 or 3/6, and when I single table, I play 5/10 or 10/20 (usually 5/10 since my ring game bankroll is rather small right now).

In any case, single tabling really helps my focus a lot as well.

[cassady]

I think it depends a lot on your goal. Poker for me is a hobby. The money is nice, but it's not what I do to pay the bills. And, as much as I like the extra cash, it's not the reason I'm playing. I'm playing to be the best live poker player I can be. To play as close as possible to how I would if I knew all of my opponents' cards. Money is just the most convenient way to track this.

For this reason, I only single table. I'd probably only play live, but the internet is convenient for two reasons:
1). Twice as many hands per hour, twice as much experience.
2). If I want to play just for an hour or so, I can do so without a commute.

My test during play is this: every single hand that goes to showdown, whether I'm involved in it or not, to be able to name the bettor/raiser/callers on every single street, and corrolate this back to an understanding of their plays. I personally can't do this on more than one table at a time.

[VegasVixen]

Bob, excellent post, it really sparked some thoughts. As for me, I will play 3 to 4 $5/10 tables usually, or 3 if one is short-handed. However, if I decide to sit at $10/20 or higher during the session, I immediately reduce total tables played to 2. I can't help but think if I applied the same discipline at all limits my BR would be much bigger! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[gvibes]

[ QUOTE ]
Every time there was a showdown, I was going to check the hand history as soon as possible and figure out how they got to the showdown, and what mistakes, or good plays they made along the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get the latest version of playerview, w/ hole-card display. It's sweet.

[Bob T.]

Ill have to check it out. Thanks.