Multi-tabling profitable?

I can understand 10 if there tiled up (Max for me is 10 tiled up), but I recently played against a person that at 1 point had up close to 31+Tables going on, and I swear I could'nt understand how she did it...I mean last year for laughs I tried 26 tables and I swear I was timing out of majority of tables, lol..

Yet at the same time this player was actually at 6 of the Final tables I was at, and I mean I was shocked cuz to have this many tables and yet still make FT's is impressive...They were all mircos btw...So my question is this then, how do you learn to go up per table, 2ndly I can't stand the Cascading/nor stacked options so for me to tile them all up what size of Monitor would I need to do 20?

Attached Images

Capture.JPG (181.3 KB, 128 views)

As far as tiling goes, I'm guessing you'll need multiple screens if you want to tile 20 tables...

yes multitabling is profitable. multitabling those stakes, unless its for a prop bet, is stupid because you could have a much better hourly by playing fewer tables of higher stakes or just improving your game. way too many players start out playing far too many tables instead of improving their game which makes it very hard to move up

if you want to multitable seriously you need to learn to stack/cascade

i stack and pull out tables when i get to finals, the more often you do it the easier it becomes because you start to take in information quicker and can make decisions quicker

By pull out, what do you mean? Add more tables when you get to more FT's?

best to describe with picture:

http://i.imgur.com/HF2Ta.jpg

left is 24" right is 15" laptop screen (24" stops at right edge of pokerstars.com table). each site is a stack of tables

when i get deep i make a table smaller and fit it along the bottom next to the party poker ones

I think that it is, considering that i heard that as a professional poker player you only make 4 bb an hour

Any online professional poker player worth a damn would describe his win rate in terms of bbs per 100 hands.

Wow. All I can say is I'm amazed at this screen shot. I'd never be able to even come close to this many games at once.

I agree with you completely. However, I want to point out that it wouldn't be a bad way to go if you wanted to practice multi-tabling for those that are intimidated by the thought of 2 tables at once, much less 20.

I don't think multi-tabling is as important post-BF. There just aren't enough good games running on most sites to make it worth it to heavily multi-table at the expense of focusing on individual games and making improvements in your game.

if you're an American*

I agree with that.

Don't agree with that, although it is true at certain times of the day. Definitely not true at weekends on PS.

If that's what he meant then he should really have included something along those lines in his sweeping generalisation.

I often wonder about this, I cant play more than 4 tables at once (and quit doing that as it was no fun) but I havent ever ventured into the world of Hems and HUDs and such. But do people play 24 table very low stakes to get a better hand history to see leaks but as one person said, they kept timing out on a lot of tables, so is playing that many tables reduce (I DONT KNOW WHAT IM SAYING HERE) why not just play $10/$20 tables as opposed to 25 microtables. Some of those big pots seems would equal a lot more than taking 25 microtables at one time. If yo have 20 tables running, with min $4 per table so you have $80 already floating out there. Why not just buyin to one table with $80 where you can really focus on just that game, or is my thinking just wack

Most players at microstakes play terribly, most players at $10/$20 tables play much better.

it's all about hourly.

Wow, that is an impressive amount of tables. I do up to 12, and that is when ihave absolutely nothing to do, like pee or anything.

To answer your question, playing more tables at lower stakes actually decreases variance. Lets say you play 20 $4 tourneys, you will cash at X rate, you will likely cash at a lower rate at the $80 table as the competition is better. So you have more chances to win in the $4 game, but also the reward isn't a great, but overall, variance should be lower.

Each to their own, you can say that you should just play higher stakes, but some people have a differant skill set to others.

Some prefer to play fewer tables well at higher stakes, the problem with that is some people simply aren't smart enough to do that and profit. Also you will encounter and have to learn to deal with a lot more variance due to playing less tables (you will notice being busted out of a tournament), and also the level of competition gets better (especially true in cash and SNG).


Some with differant skill sets prefer to play many tables at lower stakes, which still gives them a decent hourly rate with less variance.


There are cons for playing many tables, as mentioned by pascal, a lot of newer players add far too many tables way too soon. To get really good at multitabling, you need to start out small, playing just a handful of tables, and over literally thousands of games start slowly adding a few tables here and there.


Things like your table setup, hud, and shortcuts will give you a real advantage, also things like using xbox controllers or good mouse/keyboard will help you to play many hours. Also you will need to actually train yourself to play many many hours too if you plan to mass multitable, again, start out slow and build yourself up to it, much like an excersize routine. Adding one last thing, i found that most of these mass multitabling types have kind of a way to play each and every situation, like, they come up with default plays to help them make decisions quicker in game. This comes with playing loads of hours, and reviewing rather than thinking through the most optimal way to play the hand in game.

Sweeping generalization? If that's what I did, I would have said ALL sites instead of MOST sites. PokerStars would be one of the few. Happy now?

Much better thanks

This is a Tournament poker forum, not a ring game forum, so are you sure about that.

I'm not the one who quoted the "4 bb per hour" win rate. Go ahead and tell me how that translates to tournament poker. It's an insufficient statistic anyway when we're considering online poker and especially multi-tabling.

dollar per hr is more important than roi- so whatever maxes your earn is the right thing to do

Well.... if you already know how big of one you need for 10-tables tiled, x2
I'll often put 9tables tiled on a 23"monitor & then another 2-4tables on my 17" laptop.
If you're wanting to tile alot of tables, ideally you'd want 2 x 27" monitors (see fletchdad for the bomb!)... although I'd prob just go with 2x 23-24" myself
Yuuup!!!
You mean there's other places on the planet?

As far as there bein' enough good games to fill up the monitor goes??? Um.. what? Even if just sticking with games $5-$30 I can have over 10 running just from iPoker. Throw in a few more from PartyPoker, another bunch from 888Poker, a gazillion from Stars...
Players should generally play 'less' tables if they're needing to work on their game, gradually adding on more as they go along. There's going to be a point where adding more won't be adding to your hourly.
sidenote: alot of the higher stake MTT players are actually playing fewer tables (which obv. makes sense considering that they're sitting with other players who are also thinking on many levels).

I play against multitablers all the time. I love it. Pretending that micro players suck is a mistake and you're leaving money on the table by just playng without considering te style at each table. Their is a strategy to winning at every table no matter what your hole cards are. Great players know this. You will never be a greta player or a mediocre player not understanding the humans your up against. But I guess you may be able to stay ahead of the 10% rake and the thousands of lost blinds/time outs etc... if your playing against other multitablers. The best ones go up to 5 tables -on a higher stake level. If you're a beginner don't play more than 3. I play micros all the time and destroy these types - its easy to look up how many table they're on - they 3 bet pf and don't ever fold which is really profitable for me. I steal their blinds all day and by the time they catch AA/AKs I fold of ck-raise the flop if its in my favor.

This.

Sure a player could have a much higher bb or $ per hand if they were to play less tables, but overall $ or BB per hour is what matters.