Multi-Tabling VS Minimal-Tabling

hello everybody, I'm glad to write my first post here!
Recently I started to spend a lot of time learning more advanced NL Hold'em Poker. My 3 year (optimistic) dream is to play High-Stakes NL Cash-Game.


I've watched about every coaching videos:

• BlueFirePoker (Phil Galfond, DrGiggy)
• DeucesCracked (BaluagWhale, Foxwoodfiends, other good stuff)
• LeggoPoker (aejones)
• Pokersavvy (Ansky)
• I didn't like CardRunners, it's quantity over quality

I've readed about every books:

Old School:

• Super System (good)
• Sklansky, Ed Miller (didn't like them, too theoritical)
• Harrington on Cash-Games, Professional No-Limit Hold'em (ok)

New School:

• Memoirs of Aejones (very good)
• Easy Game - BalugaWhale (very good)
• Poker Puzzle - Improva, (good)
• Bobbofitos (good)
• Let there be range - Cole South (didn't like it)

What I've learned is that a lot of the book/videos advices too theoritical or crap, because it prevents you from thinking by yourself, and I dislike playing a way just because a book/coach tell us to play 15pfr/25vpip for example..A lot of coaches are not even winning players. There is some quality content though, and some guidelines that you can't avoid because it makes sense.




I've came on an article wrote by Phil Ivey: he tells that he never readed any poker book, and that he learned through experience, trial & error, and he advices the readers to start thinking by themselves. Same goes for self-taught Patrick Antonius.
I was already thinking about this: of course trying to create your own style could make you loose at the beginning, but you must know that Phil Ivey was a loosing player for 2 years at his beginning, untill he perfected his thinking process and evolved to his unique style. Same goes for durrrr who clearly doesn't use "standard book strategy" and developed his own style.



After reading this article I decided to start my little revolution, and I started thinking by myself (of course I learned some stuffs in book/videos, I don't reject everything).
And I started to drop from 4-tabling 6max to 1-tabling to test my new thinking process.
My pfr/vpip is now around the 30/40 (clearly LAG), and I feel like I'm truly exploiting people on the table. My winrate is way bigger, my ability to read is way better and I can make advanced tricky play that really disturb people. More than just identifying betting patterns, I can now feel the table gameflow (table trying to adapt to me, people that are starting to tilt and getting mad on me). I feel like I'm playing real poker and I really enjoy it, it's fun! .
I stopped using pokertracker HUD too because I just understood that it prevent me from making optimal read. I've a feeling that the gameflow of the table can give you the possibility to read people who change gears and adapt on you really fast, and you can adapt your game consequently. With a HUD you rely too much on the pfr/vpip stats and you make your read mostly with it, wich doesn't let you read people who change gears fast. It has been said that Phil Ivey is impressive because he adapts faster than anyone on the table, and as you guess, he doesn't use HUD and fancy stuffs.

I've tried with 2-tabling and the ability to read players and table gameflow is still perfect.
I've tried with 3-tabling and 4-tabling, and I feel that I just can't play my perfect new LAG game, I can still identify betting pattern, but i'm loosing the ability to read the table gameflow, feeling people who start to go on tilt or who start to adapt/make play on me. I can almost do it with 3 tables, but I start making some mistakes and my winrate is not as good, and I just can't do it with 4 tables, I have to tighten up and I don't enjoy it anymore because I feel that I miss some spots where I could extract more money and abuse players.
I know that some regulars are mass-multitabling 12+ but I don't want to grind 0.50/1$ for years, winning some money with rakeback. I prefer to play few tables and progress so that i'll be able to play in the 25$/50$ in one year, wich will give me more money at the end and make me a better player.


What do you think about this minimal-tabling idea? How many tables is optimal for your own style of play (LAG/TAG/Smart Maniac/Whatever)?
PRO & CONS?

My question is for both 6-max and Heads-Up.

To play 25/50 you would need a bankroll of $500k

Its not realistic to assume you will be earning $500k in a year unless you are already earning $500k a year.

Maybe there is an underlying reason here!

You're right Stu_Ungar, it was just to explain that I don't want to be stuck Mass-Multitabling 0.50/1 for years like some players.

Well you are always better off multitabling.

When you multitable your winrate in terms of bb/100 falls but not vastly however your $/hour increases due to the volume.

So you always earn more via multitabling.

Always is a very dangerous word in poker.

I personally know some excellent players that win money playing 6 tables but become a losing player on 8, some people cannot hold the same focus on 2 tables let alone more.

For anyone that is pretty competent at multi-tabling though its a trade off. For each table you add your win-rate will go down whilst your hourly rate will go up, that basically means you are playing progressively worse the more tables you add, until you reach a tipping point, and your hourly starts to go down. That tipping point is different for each player.

As far as I understood the tread was about single tabling vs multitabling rather than how far can you push multitabling.

Obviously there is a difference between 4 tabling and 16 tabling etc however I dont see how anyone could find say 4 tabling to be so detrimental to their winrate that they earn less 4 tabling than playing a single table.

I'm sure such a person exists but it should be quite rare.

The recommendations in poker books tend to be based on general optimal strategies for certain level players. They are not intended to be followed slavishly. In fact, most books make a point of telling players to change up their game here and there, switch from tight to super-tight to loose, depending on the table, and switch back. One of the important things is to not become too predictable to others. That said, there are ways to play that, in the long run, have proven to be relatively successful.

Each player should find his own style of play, which may or may not differ greatly from a particular winning style. There is no style of play that is a guaranteed winner, but there are styles of play that are pretty much guaranteed to lose.

If you feel more comfortable playing no more than 2 tables, that's what you should do. I can't play more than 2 with full attention either. Those who do the serious multitabling are not making reads, they expect that their basic style of play will win without the reads.

Good luck to you on the felts.

Do remember to use bankroll management. And learn some patience. Poker is a slight-edge game, not a get rich quick game. Even if someone else has got rich quick, doesn't mean you can. (And, as you note, Ivey lost for 2 years while he was learning...) Take it easy. Patience.

There is nothing inherently wrong with grinding at 200nl. Some people make a living doing that. Not a lavish living, true, but it beats working at Walmart. And it's not as easy as it sounds to pull that off.

Personally, I know that if I multitable my game deteriorates. It effects the way I play hands and I don't like being hurried on making big decisions on big pots. I may be the only one... but I doubt it.

.. Bolded.

key term is winrate. most people are losing players, so they are probably better off one tabling.

Personally i can definitely play better when i play only 3 tables rather than my normal 5-6, even though i usually only do this im distracted or drunk. but i make money slowly, and i find it way easier to tilt with less tables.