Question.....

[n1stunnor]

This probably belongs in another forum,but oh well....

Something i was just thinking about.
Is playing 2 2/4 tables and 2 3/6's at the same time the same as playing 1 10/20?

Mathemathically it seems so but for me phschologically it isn't.For instance i feel comfortable playing 2 2/4's and 2 3/6's but i don't feel comfortable at all playing a 10/20.

Is it just in my head?

[jek187]

In terms of win rate, essentially it is. In terms of variance, it's not. Your variance will be much lower multi tabling.

[rusty JEDI]

Your level of comfortability probably comes from being able to beat the 2/4 and 3/6 on autopilot. One of the big differences between the 4 LL games vs the one 10/20 is your variance is going to be larger in the 10/20 also leading to possible uncomfortability.

[crockpot]

well, a qualifier does need to be added to your same win rate statement. i don't know too many 10/20 games that feature the same caliber opposition in terms of big bets/hour as 2/4 or 3/6, even if playing four tables does slightly reduce your win rate at each one.

[Cyndie]

Think it has to do with how you process information. If you are playing 4 games at a time, many non internet players balk at the idea of playing four of anything...you cannot concentrate on all of them, and play formula poker, and don't concentrate on getting the maximum bets on your good hands.

However, players who know their opponents, and are used to playing multiple tables, and have the right equipment...relatively hi resolution and non overlapping screens...are used to selectively concentrating. Have you ever sat out at a table or two when you are in a five way capped pot? Or do you find yourself perhaps mucking a marginal hand when you are in a good pot.

The wins and losses short term should be less extreme playing multiple lower limit games, and the games rate to be easier to beat, so my personal experience has been that, since I am able to play multiple games, I do better with them than one higher limit game.

There are circumstances where that wouldn't apply, if you were in a tough low limit game, and there was a higher limit game filled with fish, and I also find that I take a while to warm up, so I prefer starting with fewer and then adding them rather than jumping into multiple games.

[jek187]

I figured the loss in EV due to playing multiple games at the smaller limits about equals the increased toughness of the competition at 10/20. Exceptions will occur to this statement both ways though.

[Wake up CALL]

You will pay much more rake playing 4 LL tables compared to one 10/20 table. This should more than offset any difference in skill level assuming you are winning player in the first place (This is not implying you are not a winner, just a qualifier to my assumption).

[Cyndie]

Very good point, when you play in a raked game the lower limits, with the exception of 2/4 games that are not raked at all until $20 are more expensive. I wonder, however, if $2/4 games do have much rake at all? I know I have seen tight games where players would just stop betting when the rake got close.

If time were charged instead of rake, would that modify the situation? I think that many B&M casinos that charge time, charge more for higher limits, but are there any where low limits are time and not rake? I guess it would have to be Online casinos that charge rake, cause with the exception of a few players who try to sneak in two tables in a live game, and I have seen it done, only online can the multiple small versus single higher limit question come up.

Doesn't 24hPoker have a program where rake is limited? That would certainly change your premise.

[Mike Haven]

just as playing one 3-6 internet poker table is faster than playing one 3-6 b&m poker table, so playing 3-6 internet poker multi-tables is faster than playing one 3-6 internet poker table - it's the same thing, just speeded up in each case

there is no relevance to playing 10-20

if you are a winning player winning at 1bb per hour b&m, all things being equal, you will win $6 per hour in a b&m game, and, say, $12 per hour in an internet game, and, say, $36 per hour on 3 internet tables, all at 3-6 - you will win, say, $40 per hour in a 10-20 internet game - all in the long run

personal comfort zones; quality of opposition; variance; your competence of playing at speed: are all "outside" factors to the above general statements

[Who Yaw]

Over the last two weeks I've started playing two tables instead of one. I play a combination of 2-4 and 3-6 instead of one 5-10 or 10-20 table. My results have been on par with my 5-10 results, but I enjoy my time more because I'm involved in more hands. Let's face it, winning poker can be quite boring. Also, I enjoy the reduced variation.

I found that with one game, I was surfing and/or otherwise not wholly concentrating anyway, so I started playing on two tables. I find that I can keep track of 18 opponents better than I imagined, but I have no clue how I would keep track of 36.

When we discuss poker skills, there are multiple skills involved. I have a feeling that the better high-limit players have greater skill in playing the players when compared to a winning low limit players. Playing the player is much more important at the higher limits, so perhaps playing multiple low-limit games allows players to maximize their strengths, while moving up changes the required skill set and reduces their win rate.

As an aside, I think that it's funny when I'm crushing one table and greatly feared, while on the other I'm catching nothing but draws and look like a calling station.