How do you play so many tables at once?

[Poker Orifice]

I have not been able to get past two tables at a time. To play a true game. I understand the reason behind playing MT's But if you relaying on software to make some of the decisions in the game are you really leaning anything about how to play the game? I know that it takes time to bulid your bankroll up by playing less tables. But what I feel you to need to focus on is becoming better at the game over all. I know that playing more tables again increase your decisions at a higher rate which in turn gives more experience. I feel that you are losing a lot of the finer points by making those quick decisions.

I totally 'agree'... IF when you're referring to 'you'... you're actually referring to yourself... or to a newer player... or to one who hasn't put in alot of time studying the game. I agree that it'd be much better for a newer(ish) player to just stick to one or two tables, spending the time to get better at the game (and I also think that some try to progress to multi-tablilng before they're ready), but I KNOW that once you've put in alot of time, adding tables doesn't take much away from one's game at all. (sure I'd do better by focusing on 4mtt's at a time compared with 12-20... but that's just where I'm at). Some of the online Tourney pros actually only play 4-6 mtts at a time.... but there are others who regularly play 20 at-a-time. Whatever works.

 

[delta50]

i play 4 as then you can give them all the attention you need to give your self the best chance of reaching the money in them,unless im chasing ftp points cant see th point in playing more than 4 at a time,most ive played while getting my ftp bonus is 9 anfd thats to get my bonus quicker,,,gl in playing 25 what ever amout of tabls u need play to rock your boat lol

 

[Lilli3]

Damn, you guys must have multi-task brains...(like women... :O ...)...

Not all women have multi-tasks brains. Yours truly, case in point.

I'm a one tabler. I totally enjoy getting thoroughly immersed in that one table. That being said, I'm so, so curious about whether I can get that same type of enjoyment from more than one....so I'm stretching my wings to.....two!!!

It's beyond me how anyone handles 16+ tables but I do know that if I see that someone is playing that many, it gives me an advantage in having a pretty good idea how they're likely to play. With that kind of volume, I'm sure it's relative in importance whether they make it to the money at my one table. But it matters to me, for obvious reasons.

 

[natsgrampy]

I will do 4 ring games at once and throw in a MTT You have to learn to SLOW the game down, Disregard the beeping and flashing and just play your game. You will find there is plenty of time to make your decisions. The only issue I find is when tables are stacked and when you try to click on one another pops up in its spot and you end up mis-clicking on the wrong table

 

[woody19]

i dont reli like playing anymore than 2, because after that i have a brain ake lol

 

[John_Of_Spades]

Was this 6 max or 9 max?

 

[naruto_miu]

Was this 6 max or 9 max?

It was all 6max tables

 

[Eclipsenz]

i prefer sticking to one. max 2 i just don't like feeling rushed.

 

[learn2playmyson]

i dont reli like playing anymore than 2, because after that i have a brain ake lol

ouch!but shortstackstrategy was nice to multitable on fulltilt. but i never played more than 14tables.

 

[jazzaxe]

I kept stats playing between 1 and 6 tables and my lowest win rate was with 6 tables and my highest was 4 tables. I think I have a comfort level at 4.

 

[The Dark Side]

When I started taking the game seriously (Jan.2010) I immediatley understood that Mass Multi-Tabling was absolutely mandatory for maximum profit potential.And... It is.But here is where it goes bad. We're not good enough to play that many tables anyway. Aside from keeping up. I mean actual poker skills. If you have a leak in your game on 1 table, youll be losing money from that leak. Whether it be in actual loss in money with a downward sriraling BR or loss just a small loss in winrate. Now take that same leak and multiply it by 15-20 tables and your BR is heading for a beating.The reason why people like Leatherass can play so many tables isnt because he's different than us, its because his skill permits him too. Many tough desicions for novice players are insta-plays for experts. Now once you have your game built up to the point where the leaks are small and the auto-pilot is ready for positive winrate you can easily start adding tables slowly and keep up and keep winning.I started playing 15 constantly @ 2nl. MISTAKE. There isnt a reason in the world why anyone should be playing that many tables in the micros. Skill doesnt permit it. It took me up until June until I finally had this epiphany. When my BR dropped from $475 to $17. I then dropped to 4 tables and began focusing on REALLY getting better. On really understanding what Im reading or watching in videos. And then apply it to my game. Not be afraid to implement what I learned. Never say "I know I should raise here, but Im gonna call/fold". If I know I should raise, I raise. The problem with planning is failure to execute.Now Im crushing 10nl. I finally feel comforatble saying I can beat 10nl. Almost rolled for my move up to 25nl, with a goal of moving to 50nl by the 1st of next year.Before, playing the same stakes I knew I wasnt doing well. I was playing for rakeback and losing that toh and i play 6 tables usually now. And am able to make great reads and plays on all. Because that is where my skill level allows me to comfortably play. If your skill level only allows you to play 1 table, then play 1 table. You will get better, and 1 table wont be enough.Really long winded and prolly TMI but I hopeyou can get something from that.

 

[The Dark Side]

I didnt write that ^^ as 1 paragraph. Even after I edited it and put all the line breaks in again it saved it as 1 paragraph. Screw it.

 

[fstpmper]

First thing you need to do is get a 24" or larger monitor. Most people that play on 20 tables are doing so with multiple monitors. Do that then try 4-6 tables until you're comfortable then keep adding them 2 at a time. I find my comfort zone before I think my gameplay is affected is 9. After that I'm just grinding rake or FPPs. It depends on what you're going for though. If you just want to break even and grind FPPs then 20+ might be what you want. If you're trying to play the best poker you can then fewer would be better.

 

[midgetfactory]

when i was building up my play chips on full titlt i found it no problem playing 16 tables. i stacked them full rings of course. i find 1 table or 2 or three in fact to be just too slow and boring

 

[pappasqueaks]

I wonder if sum1 ever done a 100 tbls at once and see if there comp wont blow up lol.

 

[Darkphoenix5000]

I have my pc hooked up to my 47in. HDTV and still cant play more then 6 tables - I feel like my style of play requires more focus to play the range of hands I play and I sacrifice quality of play by trying to play any more tables.

I guess if I was folding everything except pocket Q's or better multi-tableing wouldn't be so hard.

So question; do you multi-tablers out there play 15+ tables different then you would just 3 and if yes, how so?

 

[naruto_miu]

I have my pc hooked up to my 47in. HDTV and still cant play more then 6 tables - I feel like my style of play requires more focus to play the range of hands I play and I sacrifice quality of play by trying to play any more tables.

I guess if I was folding everything except pocket Q's or better multi-tableing wouldn't be so hard.

So question; do you multi-tablers out there play 15+ tables different then you would just 3 and if yes, how so?

Even then though, PP QQ ain't really nice when on a board of AK2, with 2 callers, lol..

 

[Poker Orifice]

I have my pc hooked up to my 47in. HDTV and still cant play more then 6 tables - I feel like my style of play requires more focus to play the range of hands I play and I sacrifice quality of play by trying to play any more tables.

I guess if I was folding everything except pocket Q's or better multi-tableing wouldn't be so hard.

So question; do you multi-tablers out there play 15+ tables different then you would just 3 and if yes, how so?

It depends upon what game you're 16-tabling.... ie. if it's turbo sng/stt... then not that huge of a difference.
For sure one will be playing slightly differently. eg. in SNG play I find I'll lose out on oppurtunities that I could've picked up on had I been playing fewer tables (this is for 'reg.' speed sng's) & was able to focus more attention on the other players. (< this is pretty straightforward though, obv.)

 

[only_bridge]

when i was building up my play chips on full titlt i found it no problem playing 16 tables. i stacked them full rings of course. i find 1 table or 2 or three in fact to be just too slow and boring

haha, what a pointless task. 16-tabling play chips.

 

[dmorris68]

I have my pc hooked up to my 47in. HDTV and still cant play more then 6 tables - I feel like my style of play requires more focus to play the range of hands I play and I sacrifice quality of play by trying to play any more tables.

A 47in TV is still only 1920x1080 resolution at best. It's not the physical size that counts, it's the resolution. If you're stacking, then that's an acceptable resolution, but if you tile, it isn't good for more than 4-6 tables. For comparison, the rig I play poker on has three monitors, each with 1920x1200 resolution, for a total spanned desktop resolution of 5760x1200.

I guess if I was folding everything except pocket Q's or better multi-tableing wouldn't be so hard.

So question; do you multi-tablers out there play 15+ tables different then you would just 3 and if yes, how so?

Numerous threads and discussions on multi-tabling here, including some in this thread IIRC.

Of course you would play 15 tables differently than 3 tables. But the more tables you add and the longer you play (and the better your skills), the better and faster you will get at decision making. When multi-tabling becomes routine enough, you'll still be able to make "fancy" plays just like you would at a single table. The problem is that beginners try to play this way from the start, and they crash and burn. You definitely cannot start out playing 15 tables like you would play 1 or 3 or 5. You have to work your way up to it, and the general approach is tighten way up and play pretty much bot-like until it becomes more natural, while adding tables very slowly.

The whole purpose behind multi-tabling is, although you sacrifice some per-hand EV by playing a tighter range, you're giving up some BB/100 in exchange for a higher hourly rate through volume. And although it's been argued both ways and many feel that multi-tabling doesn't reduce variance, it does compress it into a shorter timeslice and thus reduces the perceived impact (you bounce back quicker). Also variance can be somewhat reduced just by nature of the tighter range you're playing. Plus, typically multi-table grinders are going to be earning rakeback or VIP rewards, so that they can be a break-even or even slightly losing player and still rake a healthy profit due to sheer volume that they couldn't possibly earn with just a table or two.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

For comparison, the rig I play poker on has three monitors, each with 1920x1200 resolution, for a total spanned desktop resolution of 5760x1200.

I don't know how you can play on 3 monitors. I used to use two and dropped down to one. Too much eye and neck movement in multi-monitoring, imo.

 

[dmorris68]

I don't know how you can play on 3 monitors. I used to use two and dropped down to one. Too much eye and neck movement in multi-monitoring, imo.

Actually I don't play on all 3 anymore, although I started out that way. I hated postage-stamp sized tables so I was tiling them 6 per monitor. But as you said, the neck movement across all 3 was so much that I couldn't take it. So I shrunk my tables down to fit 9 per monitor and played on just 2, leaving the 3rd for HEM, lobbies, CC or whatever. I had no trouble with 2 though, and found it quite comfortable. BTW I had the 3 monitors before I multi-tabled, I didn't buy them for poker, and I wouldn't suggest people try to play on 3 either. But the extra real-estate is handy for other things while you're playing.

Of course I was tiling too, as I never took the time to adjust to stacking. But if/when I get back to multi-tabling FR again I'm going to try and get used to stacking on one monitor, mainly so that I can also play on the laptop when mobile without giving up so many tables.

 

[isohatedis]

i think 6 is too many at times 4/5 is managable,but thats just me

 

[Darkphoenix5000]

Numerous threads and discussions on multi-tabling here, including some in this thread IIRC.

The whole purpose behind multi-tabling is, although you sacrifice some per-hand EV by playing a tighter range, you're giving up some BB/100 in exchange for a higher hourly rate through volume. And although it's been argued both ways and many feel that multi-tabling doesn't reduce variance, it does compress it into a shorter timeslice and thus reduces the perceived impact (you bounce back quicker). Also variance can be somewhat reduced just by nature of the tighter range you're playing. Plus, typically multi-table grinders are going to be earning rakeback or VIP rewards, so that they can be a break-even or even slightly losing player and still rake a healthy profit due to sheer volume that they couldn't possibly earn with just a table or two.

Appreciate you going into detail between some pros/cons of multi-tabling. Makes a lot of sense why one would want to play that many tables when you lay it out the benefits like that.

 

[LarryT503]

I must just be slow or something because I fail when a try to multi-table too. About 4 tables is my limit, and even then it seems like a lot of work to keep up. Plus too many tables takes the fun out of playing.