I seriously FAIL at multitabling

So I was running pretty good after grinding up a decent BR for a part-time just for fun player a imo. Problem is I think I got a big head about learning ALOT about poker from here and playing halfway decent on top of that. I decided I was going to try and 4 table 10nl.

This is what happens when I start thinking happy thoughts.





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....

Honestly you really shouldn't be overly concerned about your game here...you've just played too few of hands to really say a lot.

However, if your psyche is all wacked because of this minor down turn, thats another thing. Continue to try and play the game properly and do not concern yourself as much with the outcome. If your bankroll is suffering then you need to step down and play within your proper limits.

Again, proper play will eventually bring the results, which brings the money. If you think there are flaws in your game, post hands here and get some help.

Good luck, it'll turn.

i know when i played on PS and FT, at first i was doing OK but not great, so i decided to try a smaller site and now i am doing much better. won some tournaments, made it to the final table quite a bit. i think PS and FT are just too damm big to win,you got to go thru a couple thousand players to win big. so i'm sticking to the smaller sites

It sounds like you jumped from one to four tables?

Multi-tabling is not necessarily as easy as it looks. It's also not impossible to get good at, but you really need to work into it gradually. Start up one, get basic reads and comfortable and then add one more. Stick with just two for a few sessions, and if you feel comfortable, then try adding a third. ChuckTs took a while to get used to it, and so have I and others so don't try to force it if it's not coming for you right away.

If you're concerned about how you played during that downswing, post some hand histories.

If you're down $65 and have $30 remaining it sounds like you were playing four tables at $10 buyins each with a $90 bankroll, which is nearly half your bankroll on the line at once. If that's the case, that's reeeeeally bad bankroll management and an easy way to lose your money. But you probably know that already.

1,600 hands isn't enough to declare yourself a bad multitabler, though. That's a downswing. Once you recover from hating cash games, would you consider moving down in limits and maybe trying two tables at once instead of four, at least until you're winning and feel more comfortable with it?

Yeah, jumping straight from one to four tables is definitely a bad idea. Add a table at a time until you are comfortable with how many you are playing.

BRM imo - your seriously underolled for 10nl if you only have 9 buy ins!

I think you have played above your limit. If you have that low bankroll you shouldn't play those limites with 4 tables at once.

Dorkus Malorkus said:

Yeah, jumping straight from one to four tables is definitely a bad idea. Add a table at a time until you are comfortable with how many you are playing.

Click to expand...

Yes you have to slow down and build your game up. It takes a lot of skill to play 4 tables at a time profitably. Imo you shouldn't even try this without 30-50+ buy-ins and a lot of hands under your belt at that level. Personally I would say not play more just 1 or 2 tables your first year of playing online, but that is just me. Maybe some can learn faster than I did but I believe the best way is to start out slow, learn the game, and build up a BR.

I was playing usually one ring game and one tourney so 2 tables max and I got the bright idea of trying 4 tables....

Bad BR management? Well yea it was I am not denying that. It was just an "experiment" on my part

Above my skill level atm? Obviously so it seems

I can usually bring a profit playing 1 table 10nl and being thats the lowest ring game FT has to offer that is where I will stay for the time being. I just thought, "How much harder can 4 tables be than 1 or 2, I should be able to own that?"

LOL who was I kidding! Lesson learned for the moment, I will stick to 1 table or one ring and one tourney.

deadhxc said:

Above my skill level atm? Obviously so it seems

Click to expand...

Variance doesn't give a shit if your a good player or not tbh.

But your bankroll needs to be big enough to cope with variance.

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 would start playing alot tighter and alot more aggressive than you normally play. By playing 4 or 8 hands, you are really increasing the ammount of hands won, not the ammount of hands that you are involved in.
I see multitabling as a way to pretty much guaruntee that I will be able to get all of my money in the middle, as often as I would be simply seeing the flop if I was playing a single table.

Try to narrow your starting hands and fold if you miss the flop. There really is no reason to try to get fancy when multitabling, because you can usually bleed a guy at another table with the nuts just as easily, as trying to outplay your opponent when you have a weak one.

Dont think that because you are playing 8 times more tables, that you will be playing 8 times more often. In fact get used to the fact that you will only be playing as many hands as before, just that now you will be winning nearly every hand that goes to showdown.

Is there a reason why you feel you need to play four games at once?

If multitabling doesn't work for you, don't do it.

Also, I agree with the fact you're overplaying your bankroll a little bit. Be patient and build up at the lower levels before reaching the $10 level.

I don't think you've played enough hands to really come to a fair conclusion yet so don't be discouraged.

multi-tabling is a difficult skill to get use to. When you multi-table, you find yourself feeling a little more rushed and sometimes it takes away from being able to make proper reads that you would have made if staying at just one table.

jolubman said:

Is there a reason why you feel you need to play four games at once?

Click to expand...

I make more money that way?

deadhxc said:

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....

Click to expand...

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.

odinscott said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

myself I personally prefer to play multi tables especially in tourneys but its not for new players or the faint of heart lol... it takes practice and alot of concentration to make decesions that quickly and those skills take time to develop

Divebitch said:

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.

Click to expand...

?

You haven't watched the videos that Chuck, bw, Jagsti, even Dorkus's old sit and go videos and others then. All available via the videos section.

And those aren't freerolls they're playing.

NineLions said:

?

You haven't watched the videos that Chuck, bw, Jagsti, even Dorkus's old sit and go videos and others then. All available via the videos section.

And those aren't freerolls they're playing.

Click to expand...

Hardly average players you're talking about there

jamesdadeliverer said:

Hardly average players you're talking about there

Click to expand...

Yep, but I multi table too, and I'm average. I just don't do video proof.

NineLions said:

?

You haven't watched the videos that Chuck, bw, Jagsti, even Dorkus's old sit and go videos and others then. All available via the videos section.

And those aren't freerolls they're playing.

Click to expand...

Four people is not a strong statistical sample. No doubt there are even far more than that. There are the humble that do ask 'what am I doing wrong?', but even more that don't post their losses.

Divebitch said:

Four people is not a strong statistical sample. No doubt there are even far more than that. There are the humble that do ask 'what am I doing wrong?', but even more that don't post their losses.

Click to expand...

You're probably looking beyond stats that the regulars on CC can provide, simply because most of the long time regulars on CC are winning players, multi tabling or not.

And it boils down to, if you are a winning player at your level, you can increase the $/hr rate by multi tabling if you learn to do it gradually. The BB/100 rate will likely decrease as you pay less attention to every hand, but a lower BB/100 rate times 4 or 8 or 24 tables will result in a higher $/hr rate. Plus it gives you the added advantage of smoothing out variance a bit as you get closer to "the long run" faster since you simply play more hands.

And if you're already a losing player, multi tabling will help you lose faster. An odd few losers will probably play better multi tabling as the action will help them to fold more marginal hands.

Watch some of Chuck's or bw's videos (4 tabling and more) and listen to their play against specific players because of what they know about them. Then watch Jagsti's video playing 24 tables with no HUD.

I played 1 table for 3 years before even tried to multi-table. This was almost exclusively tournaments.

I occassionally played more than tourney at a time and always felt I suffered as a result. Then this year when I started to play ring it became essential to multi-table in order to get any kind of reasonable return on time and in order to avoid overplaying due to lack of action. So I persevered with multi-tabling adding one at a time so that I didn't feel I suffered at all from playing more than one.

Now I can play 4 or 5 tables and take detailed notes on all the players, reread any significant HHs and if necessary play hands on all the tables at the same time. I can play 7 at a push but then I'm not keeping up with the action anything like as much.

Like most things it's a skill and one that can be learned. As with juggling, riding a bike or driving a car it's a skill that prior to mastery seems ridiculously complex, but once learned is reflexive.

I have made many bad mistakes playing 4 tables. Three I handle much better.