Originally Posted by deadhxc
Problem is I think I got a big head about learning ALOT about poker from here and playing halfway decent on top of that.
Any thought on what I should go to from here, I have been almost gutted atm (around 30 or so $$) and have been playing around with 1.25 single table sng's on FT. Ring games have left a sour taste in my mouth that wont come clean lightly....
First off, not only are the $1.25s probably more of a donkfest, but it doesn't seem cost effective to me, the house taking 25% off the top. The $2.25s seem a better bargain. There's been enough said about moving from 1 table to 4, but see the rest of my reply below, appropos to your situation. Last thing, you can learn a lot about pot odds
and such, but you won't be able to apply much of anything you think you learned about reads if you are multi-tabling.
Originally Posted by odinscott
The first thing that I noticed when I moved up in tables is that the hands I play have to be alot stronger.
The more tables that I play, the stronger my starting hands and I pretty much wont call a raise unless I have at least 2 pair. (This obv is with alot of tables)
The benefit is that I am winning alot more showdowns, while still having as much action as I would with one table. Meaning that I am usually only involved with one hand at a time and sometimes I am folding for 5 min without seeing a flop. My job once I hit a hand is to try to get the villian to put all of his chips in with me.
I don't mean to single you out odinscott, but your stance succinctly includes others' replies that I'd like to address. Some here say they multi-table, and out of the other side of their mouths, will talk about making reads on their opponents. To me, this works so inversely almost to the point of being mutually exclusive. I've been involved in 3 or even 4 freerolls
at a time (I would NEVER do this with real money
), and on occasion doing VERY well in all 3, like at least double chip avg. So I AM playing hands, perhaps hands you wouldn't play. And because I OFTEN find myself in 2 hands at once, the 3rd table will pop up when I get a new hand to decide whether or not to be in (a distraction!!). Something's gotta give - always.
As far as playing only stronger hands... True you should always be patient. But you might finally get your strong hand, and someone's got a better one. Far as the 2 pair, let's say you got top pair, high kicker, and if you've been OBSERVANT, the guy putting out the bets probably has middle pair or ace high. You can't always wait for premium hands, the blinds will eat you alive. Still play tight, but without my reads, I feel like I'm playing in a vacuum. Maybe that's just me and my inexperience.
I don't profess to be even a 'good' player (especially at holdem), but I don't see how anyone can get a read on the table playing more than 2 tables. My ex- used to multi- for real money. Said he wasn't interested in hands he was not involved in (!!). Why would you put yourself at that kinda disadvantage? If you want more action, why not (perhaps for a higher buy-in) pay attention
, and instead of pre-emptively hitting the fold/check-fold, you might see more flops (depending on your wiser assessment of the donks who call, and nits or TAGS who don't, position, etc. Multi-tabling, to me, does not equate to a form of 'diversification', as you'd apply to financial investments.
I'd love to know the real truth as far as how many really have success multi-tabling. My gut is that it's a lot less than most let on.