Playing 2, 3, or 4 tables vs. one

There are several reason for or against playing multi tables. I wanted to start a thread where people could post the pros & cons for playing either 1 table or multi 2+...

I find when I play 1 table I get somewhat bored. When I play at least 2 tables (prefer 3) I play more patient and generally better.

Does anyone find they play better when playing 2 or 3 tables at the same time?

On top of the fact that the more volume you play the quicker you get to the long term results and more money.

You could say that each table you add costs you a little money per table. If I can beat a game for 10bb/100 playing one table, 9bb/100 playing 2, 8bb/100 playing 3 etc right up to 1bb/100 playing 10 then playing 10 tables is the same as playing one. Its just more hands. Not more money.

Really its about finding your optimal, at the moment i can play 6 without much of a drop in my win-rate, anything over that and i am playing sub-optimally. Then again 2 years ago anything over 2 was a struggle.

I agree with tenbob. You have to find your (emphasis on your) optimal number of tables. My optimal is somewhere around 8 tables (all things considered - bb/100, rakeback etc). Two months ago it was 4. I making stabs at 10 but to mixed reviews so far. You just have to play a few thousand hands at a number of tables and then figure what is best for you. And I agree with the OP....one makes me crazy now....just boring and i play all kinds of crazy crap that I know better than to play.

When playing only 1 table I too get bored and sometimes start playing hands I shouldn't just for something to do. But once you get far into a tournament, I do much better when I concentrate on only 1 table.

My bigger problem is that my PC slows down if I have multiple games going.

I guess I am just slow, because more than a couple of tables and I notice a drop-off in my game. It also never fails that I get the situation where it's my move on 4 tables at exactly the same time and then I'm struggling to get to each game to make my move.

I tend to play one game at a time and blog if I get bored.

hou

Like others have said, it's about finding what's best for you.

I'm a break even player on 6 tables, a small winner on 4, and I run 4.5 BB/100on 2.

So, I'm sticking to two tables and spending more time on table selection.

I play about 7 six-max tables at a shot for what its worth.

It's almost impossible to make a good amount of money playing one table unless you are very very good, as in a top pro. On the other hand I make pretty decent money 18-tabling $1/$2 FR. It's about maximizing your hourly. Some can't play more than 1 without their play suffering and some are able to play 24 and still beat the game.

I have a monitor question. I recently moved up from 2 to 3 tables, and I can handle the action, but I have a tiny computer monitor, and I've re-sized my tables pretty small to fit everything (the tables, the HH window, taking notes, being able to read my HUD, etc). I HAVE to tile tables, I get very lost when I try to cascade. I know I can eventually learn how to play 2-3 more tables if I practice, but am I SOL unless I splurge for a big monitor? I play microstakes recreationally, certainly can't afford one with my BR, nor justify it to my wife just to play even more poker. Any one have any tips?

Stack or cascade, once you practice at it you get used to it. I pretty much always stack my tables and I play on a laptop.

I know all good players multi table, but u do get more focus on one table. personally i usually do about 2 a time

I find that I perform much better when playing 4 tables as compaired to just one or two. I've maintained a winrate of around 24BB/100h at the .01/.02, 15BB/100h at the .02/.05, and just moved up to the $25 NLHEFR games. Win rate tanked down to 8BB/100h after an ice cold run and one poor decision last night, but that's easy to do when I just hit 1000 hands at the level. When playing 1 or 2 tables those rates were all halved. And the decimation of my $25 winrate was due to being stuck on only one table for an inordinatly long time. I find that finding a video to watch in one corner while playing 4 is optimal for my play. Or, when I can't find anything good to watch six tables makes a negligible drop in winrate.

As for fitting windows in, if you are using a PC right click your desktop and go to properties, settings tab, and crank your screen resolution to the max your computer will take. At 1024x768 you can get 3 smallest size windows across the top with your hands unobstructed on all three, and stick one on the bottom leaving a quarter of your screen for other things. Also if you have a laptop you almost certainly can output to a second monitor where you can keep all your non-poker table items.

OK, I'm getting self conscious. Did you maintain 15BB/100 at $10NL long enough to double your bankroll? I was under the impression that 3-5BB/100 was pretty good. I've never been able to hold +10BB/100 for much more than 1k hands. Do I need lessons?

I have a 17" laptop screen and was able to fit 12. There was a bit of overlap but definitely manageable. Anything over that and another monitor definitely helps.

playing a lot of tables is a very good idea if u have a RakeBack coz u make a lot of rake when u play many hands, and the other thing is how tight u play if you're thight then opening few more tables is a good idea for loose game not that much

I maintained that winrate for just shy of 15k hands. Then I moved up to the 25nl where I'm killing it according to my sklansky bucks, but still only getting 9.5BB/100h. Sample is still quite small, been a busy few days so haven't gotten much play in. Only 1800 hands. But I wouldn't say you need lessons. Those are perfectly good winrates, and from what I hear those are the norm. I left this unresponded to for a couple days in the hopes one of the more experienced players would chime in with some more solid wisdom for me on the matter. I think I'll make a post now inquiring.

Wow, nice work.

Looking forward to your other post.

To deal with my inpacients I usually watch a movie or somthing else in the backround (homework :-/ ] instead I find I can play tournaments twice at once ( i can rock a matrix tourney ) but cashgames I must fully be involved or final tables because you dont have the same situations they are consistantly changing

Its hard to stay focused on who you opponents are and the action at the table when you have 2, 3, or 4 games going at once. Yes you increase your chances on winning faster but man it is tough to toggle back and forth between screens and stay in tune with the players at your table. I prefer one table so I can focus on my opponents and not my cards. The old adage play the player and not your cards is what I do alot and when I have multi tables going on then I can't do this.

That's what HUDs are for

True. But check out Jagsti's video 24 tabling cascaded with no HUD.

I can play 3 tables well enough, but I know my concentration suffers if I open more - and tables continually opening and closing is a huge distraction. Probably best to play just one and spend time studying the other players but am always tempted and go for more !!!!!