re: Poker & Mass multi-tabling+new gaming computer
Not bothering to quote all the relevant posts but will address some of the things posted through the thread. TL;DR so be warned.
Concur on the building your own PC thing. I've been cobbling together PC's since before there was really a BYO industry, back in the early-mid 80's where we built salvaged parts and built frankenstein machines out of IBM, Compaq, and Packard Bell components. The only off-shelf branded PC's I've bought in the last 25 years or so have been laptops, one Mac, and a cheap PC I bought for a far-away family member (so they'd have a phone number to call for support instead of me, lol).
PO, I have 3x 24" monitors but don't tile poker across all 3. I found that the constant and rapid neck swing required to keep up with the action across all 3 monitors was literally painful. So I tile across 2 monitors and use the 3rd for anything else I having going on during a session -- web browser, Spotify, videos, etc. It's a lot more convenient to have all that stuff on its own monitor so that you're not constantly competing for foreground focus with the poker tables. A 30" @ 2560x1600 or a 27" @ 2560x1440 would be some improvement, but I think you'll get more tiling across two 24" models (a virtual 3840x1200 or x1080) than across a single bigger monitor because your vertical resolution is too constrained. And at much lower cost too. A 2560x1440 monitor has only 240 more vertical lines of resolution than my 1920x1200 24's, and that's not enough to fit an extra row of tables at a size that I can easily see. Going from a 1080p monitor, it will look like a significant increase though at 360 extra pixels.
When I mass multi-tabled on FT several years back, I could get 3x3 tiled on each monitor so I could 16-table (FT max) across 2 monitors, but the tables were smaller than I really liked. Nowadays I don't play as many tables (mainly because I don't play cash much anymore and can't get that many SNGs going on Intertops
) so I go for 3x2 on each display but seldom play more than 6-8.
BTW my triple-monitor setup was not done for poker. In my line of work multiple monitors are a godsend and I used them daily for other stuff, so for poker it was just a bonus. If I had a 4th installed I'm sure I could fine a use for it, but so far I've avoided tempting myself.
On the SSD thing, a couple observations. If you're like me and require gobs of drive space, I recommend using the SSD for OS and critical high-I/O apps only, such as PostgreSQL for your poker tracker. Keep everything else on a traditional HD. In my main rig I have a 256GD SSD that I boot the OS from and install select apps on, then I have a fast WD Black 1TB drive for most everything else, and a 500GB drive dedicated to My Documents. And if you think that's a lot, I won't mention the 16TB NAS. Most users won't need that much storage though. I've seen people getting by still on an 80 or 120GB HDD for everything they do, so for them a 128GB SSD might be plenty.
As far as SSD brands, I'm not a huge fan of OCZ's since their Vertex 2 line had issues (I have one that reported 40% life remaining after only a year in use, it's still working but in a system that won't be a big deal if it dies, as I don't trust it). But today PCMall has a 480GB Agilty 3 for $259. Same on Amazon is around $285 I think. Great price on such a big SSD, and it gets decent reviews. Last-gen technology but still SATA 6Gps and plenty fast for most people. If I didn't already have several and could justify a new one, I'd probably spring for one.
Me, I'm a fan of Crucial M4 SSDs. I own 2 of them, a 256GB and a 128GB, as well as a 115GB Corsair, and 2 of the aforementioned OCZ Vertex 2's (60GB and 180GB). Been very happy with the Crucial and Corsair models. I think the M4 would be my go-to brand again just from experience, but the new Samsung Evo line looks very promising. I'm sure Crucial will have a competing line for that new-gen tech soon, if not already.
Finally, as to using a TV for a monitor, as some mentioned it's typically a sub-par experience. It's might be logical to think that because a full-HD TV has the same 1920x1080 resolution as a 1080p computer monitor that it's just as good for computer use. It's not. Refresh actually isn't the problem, as 99% of computer LCD's refresh at 60Hz anyway, no matter the resolution. It's actually a problem with pixel density and convergence. TV's are designed to show moving video, not static fine detail. In particular, fine text resolution suffers greatly, as if you're trying to read through a screen door. TV's generally suck as computer monitors for all but video games and photo/video playback.