multitabling is annoying

[hackmeplz]

QUESTION: why play 8 tables of 10NL when u can just open 1 of 100NL and play the best game you can play? this is smthng im curious to hear an answer to.

1. 10nl is softer than 100nl
2. less swings at 10nl than 100nl

#2 is a similar reason why there are a lot of people who could crush live 5/10+ but instead are content to play a lot of tables of 1/2-2/4 online. Your hourly is probably similar because 1/2-2/4 online is actually much harder than 5/10 live, but when you can play up to 24 tables at once online and only 1 live, that makes a huge difference. And if you're playing 10/25nl live you can play in 10k+ pots somewhat regularly while at 1/2-2/4 online 10k is a relatively large downswing that will happen to most people less than once/year. So would you rather have the same expectation but make steady money or would you like to flip coins and try to win big but risk having huge losing streaks as well?

 

[Worak]

I usually play at least 4 MTT tables over at least 3 sites at the same time.

Always depends on which games are available.

 

[A2345Razz]

I think it really depends on the game...for like Hyper SNGs, sure I can play 6 tables with no issues, if they were stud games(assuming no cheating by using card tracking software) 2/3 would be more than enough.

For me 4 is fine in almost anything NLH....but after that there can be some hiccups if I am juggling 3 or more hands at once with decisions.

I think I can work it up to 6 soon if I keep working at it...maybe 8-10 for MTTs/SNGs.

 

[OzExorcist]

I try to play one table at a time. Because, number one; I get a better read on the generator, number two; I have respect for other players at the table. What I mean by that is, by being there playing I'm not wasting their time or my time. If you play more than one table people at the other table are always waiting on you, and that gets annoying. Not even considering the blinds keep moving up while everybody's waiting on you.

Thing is while that may be true for you, the same doesn't go for everyone. There are plenty of people that can multitable successfully without making the other players at their table wait all the time. By the same token, I've played with people who are single-tabling and have stalled repeatedly for no good reason.

 

[ScottishMatt]

I cut my tables down dramatically and am now playing a much more selective/aggressive game. The great thing about playing against the mass multitabling players is that you can see right through them. I play 9 at the moment and that is low enough to allow me to "milk the moment" and make it look like I have a decision, seems to be getting me paid off well!


As for holding people up, I can get by at 18 tables without slowing the action, 9 is a piece of cake. And as Exorcist said, I have seen complete fish playing only one table who stall the action more often than the multi tablers.

If you are a winning player and can multi table then it is probably within your best interests to be doing so, simples.

 

[MIShroomer47]

Myself, I can multi-table successfully with 3-4 tables per screen. I used to run two monitors back in the day with 4 games on each screen. Also I am a tournament player far more than a cash player... so the play is a little more robotic in that sense.

Just keep building up your skills at 2-3 games.... until you feel you got a major handle on them. Also I like the idea of playing SNGs to practice multitabling because you can't lose more than your buy-in so if you do lose your focus, your dumping your money off struggling to keep up. But if you are a cash player more than tourny, stick to your cash games as you'll likely be most profitable in that form. Bank management is still the same, but you need to pay even more attention to how many buy ins you are playing in a session.

It's easy to get 15-20% of your roll in play at one time playing 6-8 tables, which to me, is bad bank management. You can really downswing quickly... So i would suggest dropping a limit when multitabling until you really have a handle on things and feel ultra confident to play the limits you are rolled for playing.

 

[vinylspiros]

Both. But mostly STTs.


For a number of reasons. First, you have to be a winning player at 100NL or your just spewing money. Second being BRM. If you're rolled (and skilled enough) to play 100NL then you should be playing 100NL no matter how many tables you play. Bankroll doesn't change with number of tables played.

Profit from multi-tabling comes from volume, which is also why RB and bonuses become so much more lucrative. If you're a winning player, your bb/100 will drop somewhat but your hourly rate will increase in proportion to the number of tables you're playing. Here's a simplistic example: let's say you can play 100 hands per hour per table. If you earn 10bb/100 playing one table, that's 10bb/hour. Even if your bb/100 winrate drops by half to 5bb/100 when playing 4 tables, now you're making 20bb/hour. Even if you dropped to 2.5bb/100 and earned the same 10bb/hour, you'd be earning rakeback/bonuses at 4x the rate, so you're still ahead.

The key is you have to be winning as you add tables. Once you hit a point where you can't sustain a positive winrate (especially without RB) then your losses will grow dramatically faster than when single tabling.

cant thank you enough for the clarification. i really read and understood what u said and its very valuable information ill keep in mind. but as far as rakeback is concerned:
who cares about rakeback? r u talking about vpp's or fpp's(on stars)? cause from my experience last month i grinded in the 50NL tbales for quite a long time .im talking endless hours daily in zoom so many hands and all i got from that was like cashing 3000 fpps or smthng to get 30 bucks. who cares about that? if i have to lose 500$ to get it? i mean all im saying is that, maybe im undermining the value of rakeback, or im not getting enough as your getting. to me it doesnt even seam noteworthy mentioning that im also winning vpp's. whats the catch?
i dont want to seem rude or anything but i hear alot of people talking about rakeback and i personally dont think its that much of a benefit. maybe cause im not multitabling and not making the same VPP's that u r but gimme an example if u can of what the gain is.

 

[vinylspiros]

maybe the problem is that im taking my fpp;s and transforming them into money gradually when it would be better if i did that once a month or smthng? maybe thats why im not too excited about rakeback.

 

[vinylspiros]

1. 10nl is softer than 100nl
2. less swings at 10nl than 100nl

#2 is a similar reason why there are a lot of people who could crush live 5/10+ but instead are content to play a lot of tables of 1/2-2/4 online. Your hourly is probably similar because 1/2-2/4 online is actually much harder than 5/10 live, but when you can play up to 24 tables at once online and only 1 live, that makes a huge difference. And if you're playing 10/25nl live you can play in 10k+ pots somewhat regularly while at 1/2-2/4 online 10k is a relatively large downswing that will happen to most people less than once/year. So would you rather have the same expectation but make steady money or would you like to flip coins and try to win big but risk having huge losing streaks as well?

yea man i see what you mean. im definitely going to try to do at least 4 tables. but isnt zoom 2 tabling like 6 tabling or smthng .(handcountwise)

 

[GWU73]

I cant speak for the mass 12+ table players, but the trick for playing 4-8 successfully is quasi automatic plays for common situations based on winning strategies for playing a single table.
(remove most of your difficult or unprofitable hands pre flop if you can)You need your decisions to be simple for 90% of your actions. Having a plan keeps you from spewing chips, and reduces the impact of playing multiple tables. It is also a BIG plus to use a HUD so you can adjust to the players you are actually up against.

 

[hackmeplz]

There are people making up to 10k/month in rakeback. Obviously if you lose 11k/month getting it you probably have better options but the point is that rakeback is money just like winnings are, and the goal should be to maximize winnings+rakeback.

 

[sam1chips]

Alot of players who play multiple tables are grinding out Rake Back or other VIP programs.

That speaks to bankroll management as well. From a bankroll point of view, it is safer to have 4 tables of .05/.10 than play 1 table of .25/.50

 

[dmorris68]

Never dismiss the value of rakeback. It's free money that you don't have to do anything to get. Doesn't matter how little you play -- why would you turn down free money? It's a rebate on the rake you paid.

VPP's are never going to be as valuable as rakeback for a low-volume player. When I used to grind 50NL as I recall I made $200-$300/month on FT with 27% RB. All the sites I play now I get 35% or better, but of course I don't play that kind of volume anymore. OTOH if you are a very high volume player, you can find VIP deals that net you an effective 40-50% RB but you have to play insane volumes every month to sustain it. Obtaining SNE on pokerstars is worth in excess of $100K/year in just cash and bonuses alone.

That speaks to bankroll management as well. From a bankroll point of view, it is safer to have 4 tables of .05/.10 than play 1 table of .25/.50

This is wrong.

 

[dirtyoldog]

I like to play a few at once not 16 thats nuts but 2 or 3 maybe 4 keeps ya busy and active instead of getting bored plus ya dont play with so much trash cuz its a waste of time.

 

[Slow Roll Poker]

I generally prefer one table at a time. But if it's slow-paced, I prefer two games. I can handle two pretty easily, but when it comes to 3 or more, it just gets too difficult. I really do not understand how some people can play 15 games at a single time. Seems next to impossible to me. To do good, you need to study how the players act. It's not easy to do online, but you can tell who's a donkey and who's usually got a big hand. That's my preference. If you are playing 10 games, I don't see how you would be successful.

I've really tried to play around 5 games at once and it's not easy at all. Once I start doing good in one tournament, I usually donk around the other ones. Or at least make decisions that I wouldn't normally make. If it's real money, I won't register for more than one at a time. I don't find myself to be very successful that way. I feel much more comfortable and have the ability to win if I am focused on a single table.

 

[hackmeplz]

This is wrong.

Wait what? It's safer to 1-table 50nl than to 4-table 10nl?

 

[dmorris68]

Wait what? It's safer to 1-table 50nl than to 4-table 10nl?

No, obviously not from strictly a skill perspective. If you can't win at 50NL at a comparable rate then of course it isn't safer to play 50NL. He mentioned BRM in the same sentence so my knee-jerk assumption was he was referring to the fallacy that you must significantly increase your BR in order to multi-table. Disregard if that's not what was meant.

 

[Himanshu]

its hard for me to play on more then 2 tables

 

[lilnewtdog]

When I play more than 4 games which is only in freerolls I can't see all the tables and they don't always pop up. Some sites give you less time to act and some sites pop up constantly try to tag someone and it just keeps flipping to other site very annoying. Yeah if there was some way for it to only pop up when its my turn, and I could keep taking notes or playing on the other site until the ace was over then maybe I could play more tables. Looking at how much you make per hour is key. Once it starts going down don't play any more tables.

 

[Nyylan]

If you play tight, 1 table could be very boring...

 

[babi]

i play 4 table max and its working beacuse i dont play weak hands
only strong hands, so it is rare that all 4 will beep together

 

[ariolis30]

i use to grind SNE on stars so 24 tables then i would have 4 tables rush and 12 tables regular on ftp. FULLRING no way i would do this 6 max. hahaha I would just sit there like a drone and grind rakeback. it probably shaved off 5 years of my life looking back on it now. if you are in the US the only way to grind mass tables is on BCP and go for beast lol or play multiple sites. But full ring is pretty much dead in the US so it would have to be at 6 max.

 

[BearPlay]

I try to play one table at a time. Because, number one; I get a better read on the generator, number two; I have respect for other players at the table. What I mean by that is, by being there playing I'm not wasting their time or my time. If you play more than one table people at the other table are always waiting on you, and that gets annoying. Not even considering the blinds keep moving up while everybody's waiting on you.

Same for me, except also I have always played poker as a game of people and not of the cards I watch everyone and act accordingly

 

[theRaven68]

I usually play two tables in two different rooms in a time, and i can handle with up to four tables but when you open four different clients it might be annoying.

 

[zEric7x]

I tried playing 3-4 tables before and it did not work so great. I at most play 1 or 2 tables right now and I normally play 2.