Do you really win more multi tabling?

[Sark79]

I know many people on Blonde have proven that they can do this well and their results prove this. Blondites such as tank and Dale ( an Alien, I am sure of it  ) are perfect examples of two multi tablers who play many tables and have the results to show that they are on top of each game. I know there are a whole lot more on the forum who can also do this, so forgive me if I have not given you a mention above  .  One time I saw gank playing about 30 odd tables, is it really possible to calculate odds, etc playing so many?

The reason I ask this is after something I read in a chat box earlier on Stars.  One player made a bad read and he was criticised for his error after he lost a massive pot.  He said in his defence "Shut it fish, lol. I am playing four tables, it is tough to focus".      This wasn't a $0.05/0.10 NL cash table,  it was a $25/50 NL table. 

Over the last couple of days, I have decided not to play 2/3 tables and instead concentrate on only one game. Normally I am struggling to accurately calculate pot odds and have a good mental image of each of my opponents based on the previous hands that have already been played during the game. Most of the time, I can't remember who did what and in what situations they previously raised, etc because 24 opponents spread over three tables is a lot to keep track of.  With one table, this was completely opposite. I was able to build up a character profile for each of my opponents, I had ample time to work on the maths side of the game and I felt completely in control of each decision.  This was obviously due to the fact I only had 8 people to keep an eye on.

In your honest opinion, do you feel your game deteriorates while playing more than one table?   I know pokertracker can help with this, but to what degree can it help. I have made more over the last few days playing 1 table on Hills, than I normally do when trying to split my focus between two or three tables.

I am not sure if there are any Internet pro's who play only one table. In the past, I have seen Clubber sitting at only one table on many occasions on VC, but I may be wrong .

From now on, it is only one game at a time.  I am not sure if this makes me a bad player or stupid, but I know my playing level is much better with 100% focus on everything that is happening on one table.

What do you think?    1 table or many tables?   

[boldie]

it all depends on what you play, I guess. If I play cash HU or decent stakes STT HU I wouldn't even consider opening another table.
If I play turbo sats to the sunday mill I will play several...always making sure I don't have more then 2 in the freezeout stage. I don't need to pay attention in them..just push with any premium hand and fold the rest.

I am not one for multitabling as I try to play the player more then the cards in the games I play but respect to anyone who can do it.

[Sark79]

It is an amazing skill to have, I wish I had it and am very jealous of those who do 

[Indestructable]

When i play, No.
 

[tikay]

The answer is simple, Sark. Anyone would play better if concentrating on ONE table at a time.

But SOME can win more by playing slightly worse but on multi-tables & thus winning, in pure monetary terms, more cash. But eventually something called the law of diminishing returns kicks in. It comes in at different stages for different peoole, but it probably optimises at between 1 & 2 tables. Many will disagree, that's called ego, or when claiming how many tables they can efficeintly play, "who's got the biggest dick". Same as those who say "I drink 10 pints last night, some ejit will always say they drunk 12.

[tikay]

It is an amazing skill to have, I wish I had it and am very jealous of those who do 

Don't be, not if you want to enjoy your poker. It's a game, not a race.

[booder]

The answer is simple, Sark. Anyone would play better if concentrating on ONE table at a time.

But SOME can win more by playing slightly worse but on multi-tables & thus winning, in pure monetary terms, more cash. But eventually something called the law of diminishing returns kicks in. It comes in at different stages for different peoole, but it probably optimises at between 1 & 2 tables. Many will disagree, that's called ego, or when claiming how many tables they can efficeintly play, "who's got the biggest dick". Same as those who say "I drink 10 pints last night, some ejit will always say they drunk 12.

i drank for my county

[tikay]

The answer is simple, Sark. Anyone would play better if concentrating on ONE table at a time.

But SOME can win more by playing slightly worse but on multi-tables & thus winning, in pure monetary terms, more cash. But eventually something called the law of diminishing returns kicks in. It comes in at different stages for different peoole, but it probably optimises at between 1 & 2 tables. Many will disagree, that's called ego, or when claiming how many tables they can efficeintly play, "who's got the biggest dick". Same as those who say "I drink 10 pints last night, some ejit will always say they drunk 12.

i drank for my county

EXACTLY my point - peeps who say that sort of thing.

[Royal Flush]

Tikay that's not always true, if i am playing the early stages of a freezeout i am my own worst enemy, if i play 2 i do play better as i get less involved.

[tantrum]

2 but not 8:)

[Sark79]

I mentioned to tank the other day what it feels like for me if I try to play loads of tables.  Remember the Blackpool game with the heads that pop up and your aim is to hit them with a sponge hammer. It is like that only it is beeps as each table is asking you to act.  beep, beep, beep.....ahhhhhhhhhhh 

[Dale]

I think if you're learning or trying to improve your game at a certain level (like, you're moving up to a higher buyin cashgame or learning to play limit omaha SNGs or whatever really) then it makes sense to play 1 or 2 tables so you can sit and observe and think deeper about things.

For multitabling optimal in $/hr terms for most players who are already crushing the game would be around 6-8 tables for cash and 9-12 for SNGs where the decisions are a lot easier.
Using macros to map keys to functions will help a lot. For SNGs I use a modded version of _dave_'s betpot script so that i can press F1 to fold, F2 to check/call and F3 to push, and the mousewheel to set bet amout.

I made a video of myself playing 21 SNGs withouttiming out last night just for a laugh, i think if I can get up to 30 without timing out I'll put it on youtube, should be good fun 

[boldie]

I mentioned to tank the other day what it feels like for me if I try to play loads of tables.  Remember the Blackpool game with the heads that pop up and your aim is to hit them with a sponge hammer. It is like that only it is beeps as each table is asking you to act.  beep, beep, beep.....ahhhhhhhhhhh 

so turn the sound off?

[boldie]

I think if you're learning or trying to improve your game at a certain level (like, you're moving up to a higher buyin cashgame or learning to play limit omaha SNGs or whatever really) then it makes sense to play 1 or 2 tables so you can sit and observe and think deeper about things.

For multitabling optimal in $/hr terms for most players who are already crushing the game would be around 6-8 tables for cash and 9-12 for SNGs where the decisions are a lot easier.
Using macros to map keys to functions will help a lot. For SNGs I use a modded version of _dave_'s betpot script so that i can press F1 to fold, F2 to check/call and F3 to push, and the mousewheel to set bet amout.

I made a video of myself playing 21 SNGs withouttiming out last night just for a laugh, i think if I can get up to 30 without timing out I'll put it on youtube, should be good fun 

you're a sick, sick man!

[thetank]

I made a video of myself playing 21 SNGs withouttiming out last night just for a laugh, i think if I can get up to 30 without timing out I'll put it on youtube, should be good fun 

Have you given any thought as to a background track?