multitabling question: 8 tabling sets, how many / hour

[DMACM]

I 8 table usually starting 4 than another 4 and so on. I assume that when people say they play continuously this is what they mean. I find it very hard to start instantly when one ends, although I am sure some people do it.

Lately I have been doing sets of 8 though and I find that much more enjoyable. Does anyone know how much less games you can get in an hour doing this? Assuming you can do 10-12 an hour using a continuous method, with sets would it be ~8 an hour?

[splashpot]

I'm pretty sure "continuous" means they fire another one up as soon as they bust.

[DMACM]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure "continuous" means they fire another one up as soon as they bust.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am incapable of that right now then, maybe with more practice. I shouldnt have made my original post so long. Im really only interested in the rough number of games done in hour in continuous 8 sets. I am curious if someone took the time to rigorously determine that.

[Irieguy]

Playing in "sets" means that you start up your set as quickly as you can get on the tables and play until your last one is finished.

Playing continuously means that you start up your set as quickly as you can get on the tables and reload as soon as you bust from one.

Playing 8-table sets you should be able to average just under 10 per hour playing 1000 chip games and just over 10 per hour playing 800 chip games on party.

Playing continuously it depends largely on whether your style of play is heavy on firsts/tenths, or the more common 2+2 distribution of 3% 10ths/13% 1sts. It also depends on how long your playing sessions are (if you only play for 2 hours at a time, playing continuously hardly helps your hourly rate.) But if you play long sessions (>6 hours) you should be able to average 2-4 more SNGs per hour that way.

Irieguy

[splashpot]

I have no idea how many you could fit 8 tabling in sets. I estimate something like 9-10. You also have to keep in mind that when you play in sets, the set lasts as long as the longest SNG. Even if you finish five of them in 35 mins, the set isn't over until you finish the last one. That can take anywhere from 40-60 mins.

[Mr_J]

"Lately I have been doing sets of 8 though and I find that much more enjoyable. Does anyone know how much less games you can get in an hour doing this? Assuming you can do 10-12 an hour using a continuous method, with sets would it be ~8 an hour?"

Summary:
People who play sets underestimate how many they play an hour.
Most people who play continuous over shorter sessions overestimate how many they play an hour.

First of all, a set doesn't take an hr. I'd guess that 8tabling $33s, you should probally average 50 mins a set, and 55 for $55s. I think it's quite reasonable to average 9 to 9.5 an hr 8tabling in sets.

Now to continuous. People will overestimate how many they play, since the end of the session is quite inefficient, where people will often have only a handful running (as it's quite staggered). You won't average 11+ an hr 8tabling during this part of your session, so this brings your whole average down.

Obviously the longer the session, the more efficient playing continuously becomes (since you spend less time finishing up).

I'd guess someone who 8tables 33s in sets could average 9, maybe 9.5 an hr. I'd guess someone who plays continuously for a few hrs max averages 10, maybe 10.5. The guys averaging 11+ sngs per hr continuously 8tabling will be playing much longer sessions.

The more tables you play, the less efficient playing continously becomes. You may average 6/hr 4tabling continuously, but you sure as hell won't average 18/hr if 12tabling (unless your play suffers so much that you bustout early much more often).

Also throw in that you'll most likely obtain a higher ROI playing in sets, and $/hr is probally pretty damn close whether you play continuously or in sets.

I also think that 8tabling sets is easier than playing them continuously, so 8tabling continuously is probally closer in ease/comfort as 9-10tabling in sets.

The numbers are estimates only, and I'm pretty sure there'll be quite a few people who agree with them. But you can't deny the inefficiency in playing continuously during short sessions.

Most people look at the average time of an sng and calculate it on that, which I think is a bit silly.

Also, it would be highly dependent on the player and the style of their play. Someone who mixes it up early will benefit more from continuous play than most. Someone who multitables with ease will be more efficient at starting up new sngs.

Again, just an opinion.