Why do you multi table???

Hi guys.

I have discussed this for some time now, so I want your ideas.

I`m going to set up a poll as to why people multi table. Here are a few of the poll questions, but I would like you guys to throw in more before I post the poll...

What is your main reason for playing multi tables? ( two or more tables)

• I get bored very easily so I`m kept busy
• So that luck evens itself out
• I make a bigger profit (I might need to change the way I have phrased this one to `I have found my ROI is better`)

So if you guys can think of any more questions I will post the poll in the next 24 hours.

Thanks guys

Same as you really, except I prefer to call #2 "Less variance", and regarding #3, it's generally not ROI that goes up, it's hourly rate. ROI will usually drop a little as a result of adding tables, but as long as it doesn't drop too much you'll still be gaining more $/hr.

Well when I 2-table my ROI is actually higher than 1-table. I think that has something to do with the fact that I do get bored easy and it keeps me paying attention to poker instead of the newspapar, TV, Video games, or other websites.

I find that multi tabling is not a good option for me. You are just playing the cards there. I like to have all my attention at the table I'm at.

bubbasbestbabe said:

I find that multi tabling is not a good option for me. You are just playing the cards there. I like to have all my attention at the table I'm at.

Click to expand...

So another option in the poll should be `I never multi table`???

yep

one should also be all of the above.

stormswa said:

one should also be all of the above.

Click to expand...

I can understand why u say that but I don`t want to offer a cop out!!!

If it`s OK with u I`ll leave it out ?

well

Ronaldadio said:

I can understand why u say that but I don`t want to offer a cop out!!!

If it`s OK with u I`ll leave it out ?

Click to expand...

people multi-table for many reasons and if you exclude it then there is no reason to vote for a specific one. I multi-table for multiple reasons so I wouldnt be able to pick just one so if you exclude it I wouldn't be able to pick just one so I would have to pass on poll.

Total immersion, I got a monkey on my back?

well

I thought you were actually going to set up a poll.

Dorkus Malorkus said:

Same as you really, except I prefer to call #2 "Less variance", and regarding #3, it's generally not ROI that goes up, it's hourly rate. ROI will usually drop a little as a result of adding tables, but as long as it doesn't drop too much you'll still be gaining more $/hr.

Click to expand...

how does variance reduce by playing more tables?

mischman said:

Doh, even i know that. The same with SNGs.

Click to expand...

huh?

stormswa said:

I thought you were actually going to set up a poll.

Click to expand...

I will but being democratic I want to give our cousins throught the rest of the World the opportunity to put in a question :angel:

playing more than one table at a time allows me to not concentrate too hard, but you also lose reads on people.

U Wanna Fold said:

playing more than one table at a time allows me to not concentrate too hard, but you also lose reads on people.

Click to expand...

So the poll question here is `I don`t have to concentrate as hard`?

I only multi-table in two situations. First, if I'm playing in the early going of a large-field MTT, I will often also play a small-stakes ring game at the same time. This is because my basic tournament strategy is only to play monster starters for the first two hours, so I'll probably only see a half-dozen flops or less. Playing the ring game keeps me occupied, and (hopefully) lets me build my bankroll a little. Second, I'll play multiple satellites simultaneously if I'm trying hard to get into a big tournament for which I can't afford the buy-in. Yesterday's FTOPS Main Event ($500 buy) is a good example. I played low-buy satellites all day long, sometimes three at a time, trying to get in. Failed miserably, by the way. Ordinarily, I only play one table at a time. I'm just not good enough to fail to concentrate 100% on one game at a time.

Focus Issue 174 March 2007

"Snappy decisions are more reliable than those you spend ages chewing over. In tests at University College London, participants were asked to find the odd one out on a screen of identical symbols. Computers tracked their eye movements and switched off the screen once the correct symbol had been glimpsed. People given the least amount of time to linger on the symbol were better at identifiying it"

I just thought this may be an interesting aspect to this thread.

Edit : Nice to see you back Rammer

dbitel said:

how does variance reduce by playing more tables?

Click to expand...

the more hands you play in a given period of time, the closer you will be to your expected long-term winrate, no?

Well here it goes....its like awsome sex....it builds and builds and gets better then it builds some more...until you explode...then.....you either love em....or hate em.

Dorkus Malorkus said:

the more hands you play in a given period of time, the closer you will be to your expected long-term winrate, no?

Click to expand...

yes...and.......? This doesnt at all change you variance per no. of hands, as all you are doing is playing moe hands. And as for size of swings per length of time, obviously, the more hands you play, the more and bigger swings you will have

tenbob said:

Focus Issue 174 March 2007

"Snappy decisions are more reliable than those you spend ages chewing over. In tests at University College London, participants were asked to find the odd one out on a screen of identical symbols. Computers tracked their eye movements and switched off the screen once the correct symbol had been glimpsed. People given the least amount of time to linger on the symbol were better at identifiying it"

I just thought this may be an interesting aspect to this thread.

Edit : Nice to see you back Rammer

Click to expand...

While this is true for the experiment in question, extremely quick decisions start to become less reliable the more variables that are involved. In the experiment there was only one thing that was different and that was one symbol. Also the brain recognizes visual cues faster than you can think about them.
However poker is much more complicated than picking a different symbol out of a group. In other words the more complicated a decision is, the more you improve your accuracy by lending thought to it.

As for the point of the original post, when I multitalbe it is to stave of boredom mostly, or to keep myself from doing anything stupid in the beginning of a MTT.

dbitel said:

yes...and.......? This doesnt at all change you variance per no. of hands, as all you are doing is playing moe hands. And as for size of swings per length of time, obviously, the more hands you play, the more and bigger swings you will have

Click to expand...

The swings will seem smaller. If I fire a single shot at a target I will either hit or miss, so a massive swing.

However, if I fire an automatic at the same target I will hit some and miss some. Therefor the varience/ swing will seem less the more you do.