For me, this is quite a difficult choice because playing 4 tables I can follow each opponent, perform some complex moves, play with less variance, I can also play 12 tables taking template decisions, but increasing the number of hands / hour, due to the loss of bb / 100. I do not have a large distance in the cache to judge which of the options gives a larger $ / hour. I think the format: "I play 4 tables 6-max NL50, 10/100, 20$ / hour" is suitable. Well, a few thoughts on the topic FOR a large number of tables and AGAINST:
2-4 tables:
For:
+ Lower dispersion
+ Thoughtful game play
+ Control over the game of your opponents
Against:
- Small number of hands per hour
- It is difficult to gain a decent distance (as a consequence of point 1)
- For players who love action, the game is too boring
- Small $/Hour
- Slow statistics collection
9-12 tables:
Per:
+ Large number of hands per hour
+ Quickly gaining distance
+ There is guaranteed money at the expense of the Republic of Belarus
+ A lot of action will not make you bored
Against:
- High dispersion
- More boilerplate game play
- Most actions are based on stats
- Greater loss in the case of tilt
I myself play on the advice of Hint 6 tables, but sometimes it gets boring. Sometimes I think that it would not be bad to play 4 tables that the game would be more thoughtful, but I think it will be too boring for me. In my opinion, a lot depends on what you play-for example, in 6-max, the game goes faster and heads-ups are much more, so you have to make decisions more often. If you remember
boku 87, he played 60 tables at the same time, because it was 18-max, 45-max and 180-max, where most of the game is played with a full table.
The advantage of placing tables in a stack is that you do not see how you are moved and you tilt less, and you concentrate more(you see only one table).