Ducky7
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
This.. you should be able to have the same thought process and play everytable the same (obvs changing your game due to your opponents) but i mean that each table should be played at the same standard and you shouldn't be panicing to make a decision
B
Big_Rudy
Legend
Silver Level
Well, this will probably be an unusual response, but for me the indicator is boredom. If I'm playing xNumber of tables and I find that I am getting bored; it's time to add a couple more. If not I tend to start playing recklessly just out of boredom. So, rather than force the action with a hand that I shouldn't just because I'm bored; I generally just add a couple more tables and that solves the problem and keeps me focussed.
R
rhinoji
Rising Star
Bronze Level
Absolutely! After getting bored i just play one bad hand...loved your reply. i think i am ready to take another table at the stakes i am playing in right now. However, another question: instead of adding another table, should i move up one level??
Colbefc
Legend
Silver Level
I would recommend adding another table rather than moving up a level and yes playing more tables is a varience reducer. Add a second table and make sure you are comfortable with that before you attempt to add a 3rd and so on, find your own level, some people can play 20+ tables, I can only play 6-8 before my brain starts to explode, but everyone is different.
When you are happy multi tabling and winning at whatever stake you are playing then try moving up a level but again if you play 4 tables at the lower level try just one or two at your new level and make sure you are comfortable and beating it before you add more tables.
It is a gradual process but if you want to be a winning player these things cant be rushed.
When you are happy multi tabling and winning at whatever stake you are playing then try moving up a level but again if you play 4 tables at the lower level try just one or two at your new level and make sure you are comfortable and beating it before you add more tables.
It is a gradual process but if you want to be a winning player these things cant be rushed.
eberetta1
Legend
Loyaler
Colbefc
Legend
Silver Level
Yes, I completely agree, our bankroll does control our actions, I forgot to put that in my reply sorry, you need a lot bigger bankroll to play 4 tables than you do one.
It doesnt matter at what level you play or how many tables you play, the three most important keys to poker success are bankroll management, bankroll management and yes more bankroll management, without it it doesnt matter how good a player you are in the long run you will lose money, it is THAT important.
It doesnt matter at what level you play or how many tables you play, the three most important keys to poker success are bankroll management, bankroll management and yes more bankroll management, without it it doesnt matter how good a player you are in the long run you will lose money, it is THAT important.
eberetta1
Legend
Loyaler
It is amazing how we sometimes know the answer to our question already(you mentioned you would rather play more tables). Bouncing off an idea with those more experienced than you, saves you the hassle of learning by trial and error. Colbefc suggestion is on the money about adding another table(s). Keep listening to your instincts and in your case, it will be a good guide in the direction you should go.
Moving up one level would be the equivalent of taking the training wheels off the bicycle or raising the basketball hoop another foot higher. It is a totally different beast. To be conquered when you are ready, or never to be conquered if you already enjoy the level you are at.
B
Big_Rudy
Legend
Silver Level
I'd say add more tables first rather than move-up. After you get to a reasonable number of tables, are winning, and feel comfortable playing that many tables; then reduce the number of tables a little and move-up. Of course, always keeping an eye on your bankroll, especially if it is not easily replaced.
Arjonius
Legend
Silver Level
I do think the minimum roll should be somewhat larger to multi-table, but I'm interested to know why it should be "a lot bigger".
If, for example, I have 30 buyins, why do you feel there's much lower risk of going bust if play 1 table versus 5, 10 or even 30?
kmixer
Legend
Silver Level
This sums is up nicely I think. The idea is that you would rather play more tables because it allows you to see more hands. This means you will not fall asleep and will only play the hands you should be playing. I notice that I seem to have a better session when I play two tables than when I play one. Mainly because I don't get bored and fold a lot more. If you only play one table you will tend to play more hands because you haven't seen any action in a while.
dmorris68
Legend
Loyaler
The single most important factor is being a winner at the number of tables you're currently playing. If you're not a winning player, then there isn't even a discussion -- drop stakes or drop tables until you are. Then add slowly, maintaining a profitable rate before you add more.
If you're losing money at however many tables you're playing, then BR is irrelevant at that point in time anyway, and you need to move down/decrease tables until you can sustain/increase your BR.
If you're in the camp that feels variance increases with more tables due to reduced winrate, then a modest adjustment should be all you need. If you are *properly* adding tables, which means maintaining profitability at an increased hourly rate, while also properly rolled for the stakes you're playing, then I argue that there are no real BR considerations to be made.
No. It just makes variance come quicker. Some will argue that multiple tables increases variance a bit. I'm not necessarily on board with that, but it largely comes down to what you define as variance. In terms of pure luck (how the cards fall) which is what I consider as largely constituting variance, then multiple tables don't change anything. However if you subscribe to the notion that the expected decrease in bb/100 winrate equals a direct increase in variance (without considering the respective *increase* in hourly rate), then yes you could say it does increase variance somewhat. But not drastically. Remember that as bb/100 goes down, your hourly goes up if you're a successful multi-tabler. If it doesn't then you're losing money and have to make the same sort of decisions you'd make with a given bankroll while suffering a downswing at one table, i.e. if you're no longer properly rolled for the stakes you're playing, then you need to move down, decrease tables until winrate improves, or boost your BR.
If you're losing money at however many tables you're playing, then BR is irrelevant at that point in time anyway, and you need to move down/decrease tables until you can sustain/increase your BR.
Not so! Bankroll has no considerable impact on how many tables you play. Whether you play 100 games one after another or 100 all at once, the BR considerations are the same. As I said above, variance is arguably increased with more tables, but not significantly such that you need "a lot bigger bankroll" especially if you're just talking about 4 tables. Maybe if you have 30 BI's and sit down at 30 tables at once, then yeah you're stretched a bit thin since you can't reload at any table during the session. But most multi-tablers aren't (or shouldn't) be doing that.
If you're in the camp that feels variance increases with more tables due to reduced winrate, then a modest adjustment should be all you need. If you are *properly* adding tables, which means maintaining profitability at an increased hourly rate, while also properly rolled for the stakes you're playing, then I argue that there are no real BR considerations to be made.
D
DaMan1313
Enthusiast
Silver Level
It is based on individual ability i dont think there is a magic number to follow. Play at whatever you feel comfortable. im pretty bad at many tables but a good way to measure if u are at too many is simply if your hand is being folded automatically on more then one table then its time to move down.