]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
I certainly would not dismiss multi-tabling out of hand. I've actually thought a lot about it, despite my poor attempt to articulate it. I really can see the advantages. I really can't point out the disadvantages well enough, certainly not as well as Monk did, despite disproving it at the same time.
I understand how the variance can be evened out. Spreading the risk, I think it's called. I can also understand how it keeps you focused as it can get pretty boring at times. I surf while the first few levels of an SNG are going on. I only focus completely on it when it gets down to 5 at level 6. I really am understanding the arguments for multi-tabling. Please forgive me if I cannot give the other side very well.
You guys are absolutely correct to play as you do and I would no more try to persuade you not to play this way than I'd try to persuade you that playing 8-7 off suit from the button is not a good hand for you to play. You can do it. I cannot. You can make a compelling case for multi-tabling. I cannot, unfortunately, make a reasonable case for playing a single table. Wish I could. I'll continue to work on it, however.
Can anybody else?
Statistics: Posted by Cactus Jack — Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:29 am
]]>
Statistics: Posted by euri10 — Thu Mar 03, 2005 8:38 am
]]>
anyhow...the reason i multitable is 4-fold
1. Less varience. The tables balance each other out.
2. more hands. if i only played one table i would start playing complete garbage hands. multitabling always provides action.
3. I don't have the bankroll for those high games.
4. I'm not yet accustomed to losing over $500 in one hand.
Statistics: Posted by kennyg — Thu Mar 03, 2005 8:24 am
]]>
Well, I play 5 or 6 PLO tables at once. When I started playing online I played no more than 2/3 tables at once. Over time I have got to grips with the game at the levels I play more and more, and rather than move up to a game where I would have to work a lot harder for my money, but where I could be more profitable (500, 1000 buyin) I have stuck where I am, refined a few aspects, added extra tables and got into a few other aspects of the online game. I still play fewer tables, however, if I have a higher buyin game(s) going (200 or 400, rather than the usual $100). I make about $10 per table per hour (massively inaccurate estimate lol); at about 40 hands/hour (which is about right for PLO, perhaps a bit of an over-estimate) that puts me at somewhere in the 25BB/100 region for each table. If I'm playing at Stars (where I expect the games to be a bit tighter) that might fall off a bit, though when I play fewer tables (4 or 3 for instance) and really concentrate I can get up beyond 30BB/100, I suspect, and can make something in that region even at Stars as long as I avoid it when the average pots are much below 30BBs.
Could I make that much playing a bigger buyin game? Probably. In fact, if I always hit them at the right time, I suspect I could quite easily make $50 or even $100 per hour (somewhere in the 10-20BB/100 range) playing the $1000 buyin games. However, I don't want to play those games because quite simply I couldn't handle losing several weeks wages in 30 seconds in one hand of poker. The variance would kill me and a $5000 or even $10,000 downswing would not only take a good sized chunk of my BR but leave me emotionally pretty screwed up at this point.
There is a technique to multi-tabling, just as there is a technique to squashing out every last ounce of value from a single-table. In both cases, the most adept players will make the most money. One is not necessarily better than another, simply, they are different techniques. One argument that is, in my book, very pertinent, is the suggestion that multi-tablers do not progress their game much and lose out in terms of watching other players, making reads, knowing what's going on and generally learning to play better poker. That is a very good, and correct, argument. However, to make a good living playing poker it is not necessary to be a world class player. Attitude to the game and external planning are much more important than actually being any good at poker. A player could become very adept at multitabling and still earn a living wage without ever having to progress beyond the $25 or $50 buyin games. A player such as myself could continue to make a much better wage than I'm qualified for in the world of work by playing the $100 and $200 tables. $100 per hour is not out of the question in the current online environment, choosing the right games with a big bankroll and a good multi-tabling ability, without ever playing in a game with bigger than a $200 buyin. TUP, the most successful poker player here, makes somewhere around that figure.
I don't think it is true to say that you can make more by playing a single game than you can by playing multiple tables, unless your abilities as a multitable player are very, very bad to the point where even playing ABC is not possible. This is true for most games (though perhaps not very tough games where your edge comes from outplaying your opponents marginally). Earning 10BB/100 on 4 tables is still going to be more than anyone can achieve playing 1 table, even if they are Stu Ungar.
Multitabling has other benefits - in a big bet game it can help alleviate variance compared to the amount of money in play than would be the case on a single table. I can play 5 $100/200 buyin games at one go with around $1000 spread accross the tables, but I am never going to lose all of that in one go. If I play a single $1000 table all it takes is one big hand to be rundown or one monster vs monster situation to lose $1000 in one go. The swings playing 5 $200 buyin tables will be much lower than 1 $1000 table. It would be possible to have a $3000 losing session at the latter, but this would be basically impossible in the former unless you were trying very hard to achieve it.
Also, I find with multitabling that I am very regularly involved in a hand, every few minutes. This suits me well as I find internet poker much more boring than a real-life game. I can quite happily spectate on a real game, there is just so much to take in. I am happy to fold hand after hand and get the stimulation I require to maintain concentration for several hours. Playing online with just one or two tables, especially with PT keeping track in NL, my mind wanders to other things; I put the TV on, music, I think about other things and only focus when a big pot is being built or when there is a particular player I am targetting. I miss a lot of information anyhow, and become restless and more likely to make a big crying call or play a hand badly in the early streets. I am less inclined to do this on multitables; there is always a big pot brewing somewhere to watch and take in info from, and I always know that another big hand is statistically likely to be coming soon for me, so it makes it easier to lay down the marginal ones and be much more selective and level-headed. Yes, of course I miss some information, but it is the minutiae of detail, bets preflop, what hands someone will bet the flop then fold the turn with, how many flops is this guy seeing etc etc, things that will not sway a big decision too much either way. Of course this information is worth money... but how much? I would hazard to suggest that in the short term, not as much as you might think. Most players exhibit similar patterns, of betting, of behaviour, and this, together with a broad read on the way they play, is usually sufficient to get a decent line on them, providing you stay out of the marginal stuff. The big killer for a multitabler is when they DONT stay out of the marginal ones, then it becomes a guessing game. Yeah, you won't extract every last cent of value from the table, and yes you will lay down hands you would play in a live game, or when 1 or 2 tabling, but does this really matter?
If the climate changes and online poker takes a nosedive, suddenly it'll be harder to make a scratch in this game, and only the best may survive; opportunities may become limited and taking best advantage of those may be the only way to make any money. Being able to play and maximise one table then becomes more important, and so picking up those crucial skills is, I think, very important indeed. But is it important enough to sacrifice the additional money that can be gleaned by playing multiple tables? At which point do you say that you're good enough and have satisfied your own desire to play better poker on a single table and take to multiple tables? Economists talk of opportunity cost - every time you sit at a single table and make $20 per hour when you could be on two tables making $15 per hour on each, there's your cost. Hypothetically, is it worth the loss of earnings to fulfill your own desire to proclaim yourself a better player? At what point does the bottom line become more important than the psychological boost you get from playing the game, and playing it well? Can you somehow export the need to be "better" at one table into a desire to become a proficient multi-tabler, substituting one competitive drive for another? All these questions I cannot answer; they are personal and will be different for each and every one of us.
Players learning the game and looking to improve as single table players, and to improve their poker in general, should indeed play on only one or two tables, allowing them to maximise reads and play a good, strong game. This I readily accept. A player should probably be able to comfortably beat a single table at the level above which they play, before they attempt to multitable at the lower level. For some of us, though, the money we gain in the short-term by multitabling outweighs the desire to take our individual game beyond a certain level of achievement and the potential future profits that can be made by really moving up to that "next level" of play; for me, I know that in the medium term i could support myself to a very good standard of living playing the games I currently play in a multitable setting. I also accept that I am only good enough in one game, and a rare game at that (PLO) to be able to make a living from it if the internet was not available or if I suddenly had to single-table $500 or $1000 buyins (though I suspect I could feed myself playing NL live, where I am a much more proficient player than I am online, and I guess even there I made very good money last year). Therefore, if the climate changes, or if I really want to get to a level where I can play 10 hours a week up to retirement, I might have to improve my game further and advance up the levels... But who's to say my game isn't improving anyway. I certainly haven't met anyone up to $400 who I wouldnt fancy tangling with at PLO, and I reckon I am one of the better NL players up to that level, though clearly I am not the best and not world class by anyone's estimate! But maybe the steps needed to get to that level are not so difficult to traverse; I don't know, because I haven't tried.
For me currently, I am enjoying what I am doing and I consider it a major aspect of playing online successfully. I would rather be lucky than good, and by that same token... I would rather be rich at 5 tables than skilled at one. In poker, the bottom line is dollars and cents. Even the best players sometimes fail, sometimes very average ones have great success. Just look at Stu Ungar, or someone like Lou Krieger; one a maestro, one a relatively average plodding pro. One dead in his 20s and the other a rich man in middle age. There is more to master in this game than how to play suited connectors to a raise, and I'm not even halfway there, but my path so far has been successful and I would certainly not dissuade anyone from adopting some of the above attitudes to their game.
Well, sorry about the long-winded post... I guess my main point is quite simply that multi-tabling is a major facet of internet play and, like any other aspect of the game, it is folly to devalue it or dismiss it out of hand. Players should be prepared to work on it, just as they'd work on any other aspect of their play; indeed, my argument would be that, purely from a bottom-line perspective, your results will see a far greater boost by improving your multitable technique than by any small tweaks you can make spending endless hours poring through PT data or generating exhaustive notes on how a single opponent plays QQ.
Thoughts?
Monk
xxxxx
Statistics: Posted by Felonius_Monk — Thu Mar 03, 2005 7:36 am
]]>
I play 4 table of .50/1.00 NL and it ended up being much more profitable then 2 or 3. However, my win rate dropped for each respective table but when added together I still made more money. I played extremely tight in those sessions with a VP$IP lower then 12%.
I'm much more comfy playing 3 tables. I think at the 1/2 NL level..4 is starting to push it. The players are a lot better so being an absolute rock isn't nearly as profitable.
Statistics: Posted by kennyg — Thu Mar 03, 2005 6:25 am
]]>
Now, I realize that one of the major advantages of playing online versus BM is the ability to play more than one table at a time. But with that advantage comes an increase in the disadvantage: the ability to play the opponent as much or even more than the hand. When one is playing more than one table, the ability to know what the opponent will do in any given moment becomes less and less. This, imo, leads to leaks and lost opportunities. Given that losing a single bet may be the difference in winning or losing for an entire hour, it seems to me that many if not most players may not be seeing it in perspective. If they are good enough to play multiple tables for a low BB/hr rate, could they be winning at a higher rate were they playing only one or at most two at a time?
If a guy is playing 4 tables at 2/4, he's risking 16. If he were playing one table of 5/10, he's risking less, but perhaps earning more? (I realize this is not mathmatically correct, but how do you mathmatically represent a feel for the game?) I'd like to meet the person who plays 4 tables at one time and is up on all 4. I doubt anyone can convince me they are consistently winning 3 out of 4. And to be winning high enough on the 3 to offset the loss on the fourth? I think there's a lot of bullshitting going on out there, and worse, it may be self-bullshitting, which is the very worst kind.
We've all seen where losing one good pot can cost the profit of two or three days. Losing a big pot on one table could wipe out the entire winnings on the other three. Plus the variance, the concentration required, can and I'm absolutely sure does contribute to burn out. I'm not worried about guys who are playing many tables at one time. I don't think they'll be around too long. I think it's more strain than anyone can bear for the long term. When they burn out as they inevitably will, I have no doubt they'll miss this as the probable reason.
I'm about to go to 2/4. When I clear this month's Cryptos and finish with Paradise's 50% deposit bonus--the Granny--then I'm depositing $500 into Paradise and playing a single 2/4 table. Depending on my results and how I feel, I may play 2 tables to clear the bonus faster, but my goal is more to maximize the single table and really focus on Pokertracker to see where my game is at this time. At the end of next month, I'll redeposit to the Crypto sites and clear April, then May. Hopefully, both my game and my bankroll will increase dramatically. I think playing 3 and 4 tables would not be in my best interest.
When I can, I'll go up in limits a step at a time, focusing on one or at absolutely most two tables. If I can be convinced that most times I'm profiting at BOTH tables, then I'll continue to play two. However, I expect to see that one table will be much more profitable than the second.
I simply believe that a GOOD player can win more at higher limits at ONE table than he can at lower limits at 4 tables, because good players win as often playing the opponents than playing the hand alone. Missed opportunities cost money. 3 tables increases the variance exponentially, I believe. And multi-tabling skews the results in Poker Tracker, which can lead to false data which can lead down a very wrong path.
Am I wrong?
Statistics: Posted by Cactus Jack — Thu Mar 03, 2005 4:17 am
]]>
Statistics: Posted by iceman5 — Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:25 am
]]>
]]>
How can those Omaha guys do it when there is so much to look at (twice as many draws with 4 cards vs 2) etc.
BK
Statistics: Posted by BKAZ — Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:42 pm
]]>
8 isn't that rare. I've seen it before and I don't think it's out of the question at all. I did hear a guy say that he was playing 12 or 15 tables (I forgot which) a while back on 2+2. He said he was playing 3 sites at once. Now THAT is hard to believe, but I don't think it's impossible. 8 certainly isn't.
Statistics: Posted by Mad Genius — Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:08 pm
]]>
]]>