Great post, dmorris. I never said tracking software was useless, quite the contrary I understood the potential.
Well I don't think my comment on that was directed at you. Some others in this thread questioned the importance of tracking software, and it happens regularly. I'm not trying to criticize those with that opinion, only trying to make sure they understand where the perceived value comes from. If it's not for them, then great, but I hate to think that someone refuses to realize their value.
But I want to ask you about your multi-tables, It's hard for me to imagine using that many.
I'm hardly massively multitabling, the top grinders are playing 16-24 and even more. I used to look at that in awe and think it would be impossible for me to ever do, but the more I MT the more plausible it becomes. Not that I'm in a hurry to.
I will say that when you're accustomed to MT, it's quite hard to play a single table again. I don't mind single tabling tournaments as much, and in fact prefer to keep tourneys down to 1 or 2 tables, but trying to play a single ring table is just maddeningly boring to me now.
So, here are my questions...
1) Are you using multiple monitors - 2 or 3, with big screens 22" +? Because on my flat 19" monitor, even 4 tiled tables with HUD enabled is crowded.
A 19" would be difficult to play many tiled tables on. You need resolution. My main rig has 3 monitors: two 24" monitors and one 25.5" monitor, all running at 1920x1200 resolution. And no, I didn't buy these for poker -- I'm a professional geek who uses them for all sorts of work and hobby related stuff, but they do come in extremely handy for multi-tabling! Unfortunately 1920x1200 panels in the 22-25" range are getting harder to find in consumer monitors, they all seem to be going to the 16:10 HDTV aspect and 1920x1080 or even lower. The more professional models that still do 1920x1200 and up are more expensive, but that extra vertical resolution is important to me and makes a big difference in tiling tables.
When I 4-tabled, I had two fairly large tables on two monitors, using the 3rd monitor for HEM, lobby, browser, etc. I then added 2 more of the same size onto the third monitor, but I really hated it because swinging your head across about 6' of desktop space trying to keep up with tables was a literal pain in the neck. Going to 8 tables, I shrunk them down to fit 4 each on 2 monitors, again leaving a monitor open for other stuff and reducing the amount of "neck swivel" to watch all the tables. Now that I'm up to 9, I have all in a 3x3 layout on the main center monitor (the 25.5") with the extra 1 or 2 outliers on the right monitor. I usually keep HEM and the lobby on the left monitor, and sometimes a browser up on the right monitor behind the extra tables. At 3x3 they're as small as I can stand them and still fit a useful HUD -- WVH could tell you from our sweat session a couple weeks ago that my HUD text was already small in a 2x2 arrangement, and now it's even smaller. So if I add any more tables they'll be tiled 3x3 on the second monitor. FT only technically supports 16 tables anyway, so I should never need more than 2 monitors at 3x3 each.
All that said, there are several approaches to multi-tabling beside the tiled approach that I prefer. Many players stack or cascade their tables, and get a lot of help from AHK scripts or Table Ninja in helping focus & hide tables as necessary. I may try stacking one day, but for now I prefer tiling. My mind associates certain tables (and certain players) by their position in the matrix, so I tend to automatically react differently or pay more/less attention to those tables in those positions. With stacking you lose that positional awareness and would have to correlate those specific table dynamics with a table or player name. Something else I don't need to remember.
2) How can you physically pay attention to all of them, especially the situations where you get to play 2-3 hands simultaneously? Sometimes I lose track with 4 tables (esp when tired) and time out in 1 or 2 while paying attention at another one.
Believe me, it gets a lot easier with practice. As I mentioned the hardest for me was moving from 2 to 4. After that it was progressively easier to add more tables.
It's important to understand, especially when first adjusting to playing several tables, that you cannot possibly play the same game you would play at a single table. You must tighten up quite a bit, make use of the auto-fold checkbox constantly (you don't want to wait your turn to fold every time, otherwise you'd frequently have 6 tables due at once and not have to time to get to them all). You'll be playing mostly ABC poker, especially at first. Your winrate when multi-tabling will typically drop, but your hourly rate will typically increase (assuming you're playing a decent game).
As you get better, you might play 4 or 5 tables as well as you'd play 1 in terms of outplaying your opponents, but I don't think there's any way that a human can play 12+ tables and maintain any level of complex play. You become a machine basically, a bot, at those levels. Which is one of the arguments against multi-tabling: some players never develop that next level of thinking because they don't have any opportunity to do so. Therefore it's important you don't over do it, especially if your game isn't solid yet.
Timeouts do happen, but less frequently the more experience you gain. Sometimes when involved in a tricky hand I'll focus too much and let another hand timeout. Again, tools such as AHK and Table Ninja can help here by auto-activating your time bank so you don't have to.
3) Do you get to read the players at all, apart from what HEM is telling you? Is it always accurate on reading your opps? I'm thinking that someone can have a night where they play completely different than what their stats suggest...
Reads primarily come from player notes and HUD stats. There are some regs that you'll play with that you get to know their style after awhile, but mostly you're looking at a HUD which is why they're so valuable to multi-tablers.
Stats do take a large sample size to converge into accurate numbers, but the major stats like VPIP/PFR/AF will still give you a fair idea of a player's style within the first 50-100 hands. While it's possible someone could be on a hot or cold deck and that initial sample be very skewed, generally you'll know whether they're fishy or nitty within the first few dozen hands.
When I get into a big pot with a good hand against a reg, I slow down, use the time bank, and sometimes let my other tables timeout if necessary, to really try and decide if or how I can outplay them. With a reg that I have a lot of hands on, this is much easier because you can see their relevant stats. For new players I just go by the best range estimates I can come up with from their limited stats. Hand range estimation is something I'm really trying to work on, because combined with those basic stats a lot of decisions get easier.
Gah, I typed this in chunks over a the last hour or so and now see it's grown quite large. Sorry for the novel, I'm a fast typist and tend to run off at the mouth/keyboard sometimes...