playing 4 hands at once

[edsilver]

at pokerstars i saw 3 people playing in 4 different hands at the same time, how and why do they do it?

 

[Styrofoam]

not at the same table i hope? But the greatest thing about online poker is the potential to win money at a much faster rate than a brick and mortar.... As evidence by the guy playing 4 tables at once. Of course, your concentration on each hand is a quite a bit lower, but assuming you make 15 bucks an hour playing 1 table, you can make 30 bucks an hour playing 2. I haven't mastered playing 2 games at once yet, but i will eventually and hopefully it doubles or triples my Hourly winnings.

 

[Tammy]

I think they do it to get their raked hand requirements faster to obtain their bonus more quickly. I myself can barely handle two at once, let alone four! But I've heard some say they do as many as eight! Too crazy for me.

 

[LFC89]

Doesn't it all really depend on the type of player you are? I'd consider myself tight, so I usually play 3/4 tables at once because I don't get involved in every hand. If you're loose/aggressive/whatever, you might just play one to be extremely focused and "run without the ball" instead of relying on the cards to do the work for you.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

Of course, your concentration on each hand is a quite a bit lower, but assuming you make 15 bucks an hour playing 1 table, you can make 30 bucks an hour playing 2.

Not really. People multitable mainly because they make more money doing so, but to suggest that you can multiply your average profit by the number of tables to get expected gain is a little simple. When you're playing multiple tables, your concentration will suffer a little as you said and you will miss little things, and your winrate will suffer. Still, it's worth 2-tabling it even if you make $15 an hour 1-tabling, which drops to $12 an hour if you're 2-tabling, as you're winning $24/h as opposed to $15/h.

 

[Stick66]

It depends on the site & its software, too. A slow site like Full Tilt is easier to keep up with, as opposed to a quick site like Titan. However, I saw a guy on 7 tables at once at Titan today. He was talking about getting a 21" monitor so he could have 4 windows on screen with no overlap.

I prefer to study my opponents closer than multi-tabling allows. I've lost my a** trying to keep up with the hand timer without being able to figure out who is bluffing a lot or is loose or overly aggressive.

 

[Beriac]

Depends...

Yeah it really depends on your style. When I am playing tight I can multi-play, but anything more complex or involved than that and it's a no-go. To be fair, when you're playing really tight on a single table, that can get somewhat dull online... no casino accoutrements to look at!

I do think if you multi-table it will quite limit your profits/table, as many more complex strategies and observations you could make at a single table, you really wouldn't be able to do.

 

[respira]

I like to play more than one table at a time 4 is my max but i prefer 2...whats really funny is to watch me try to play more than 2 omaha hi/lo tables...brain gets fried real fast.

 

[Beriac]

Yeah I prefer 2. I find it's hard to read tables at low limits anyway, as players are (a) often certifiable, and (b) coming and going. So with 2 tables I can usually keep tabs, not get confused, but perhaps most importantly, not get bored so that I start playing weak hands!

Actually, participating in the forum is a good way to balance that out too

Yeah, I once tried to play Omaha hi/lo and NLHE at the same time, the results were not pretty.

 

[Ima6T4]

I can remember KJSexton playing at stars and the chip leader at his table was on 11 tables. I didn't think most sites would let you on that many (7at absolute I think comes to mind) I have trouble enough with 3 at a time, let alone that many.

 

[Beriac]

Ouch, man, I got hit with some hard negative reputation grades for my posts on this thread. I wasn't aware that I was limited to one post per thread, I thought the idea was that it was like a conversation, where if someone replies to you, you might reply back. Yet at the same time, lambasted for making different comments?

It's a nuanced topic. My first post replied to the above posts in the thread, my second one was directed more at respira, who had since replied.

Sorry, I just noticed this whole reputation thing, it's a little jarring to have harsh words in all caps typed about posts you had the best intentions about when writing.

 

[Ace de Espadas]

I personally don't think I would be able to keep up, EIGHT?, no friken way.

 

[robwhufc]

Ouch, man, I got hit with some hard negative reputation grades for my posts on this thread. I wasn't aware that I was limited to one post per thread, I thought the idea was that it was like a conversation, where if someone replies to you, you might reply back. Yet at the same time, lambasted for making different comments?

It's a nuanced topic. My first post replied to the above posts in the thread, my second one was directed more at respira, who had since replied.

Sorry, I just noticed this whole reputation thing, it's a little jarring to have harsh words in all caps typed about posts you had the best intentions about when writing.

Nick, this isn't the first post like this. Can we have the negative reputation removed, as a lot of good posters have been the victim of this maliciousness, and I think we're running the risk of losing members if this continues.

PS Beriac, what did they say? Just curious!

 

[Beriac]

I guess it's no big deal. I'm still pretty new, so I was concerned that this is a regular modus operandi for posters on the forum, but most of the regulars here seem pretty nice so it's probably one bad apple.

The feedback was, shall we say, to the point: "MULTIPLE POSTS?", and "MAKE UP YOUR MIND". I re-read my posts and they seemed reasonable, so I just didn't know what the point was.

I was concerned that it was indicative of an air of judgmentalness here, perhaps even a justified one, as a result of a disconnect between the regular posters here who just want a good forum and the new ones who come in and post a ton mostly trying to get into freerolls. I could understand that, but it would be unfortunate if it created an air of criticism.

Anyway, I don't think that's the case, most of the regulars I have chatted with have been highly amicable and there are always a few bad apples, so no worries.

 

[robwhufc]

I'm not a repper, but i've repped you to un-rep your negative rep. I don't see what the benefit of the "Disapprove" button is. If someone did have a problem with a post, they should do so on the thread to give the opportunity of a reply, and not hide behind the anonymous feedback comments. Unfortunately Beriac, you're not the first person to be hit like this (it's happened 3 or 4 times now) so I can promise it isn't anything personal.

 

[Nick]

I really wouldn't worry about it Beriac. This person gave you negative rep - which is fine, for two reasons. Firstly you have plenty more positive than negative rep. Secondly, this guy had hardly any rep power so it didn't really affect your rep level.

In a community there are always one or two people who don't like your views, so you really have to just ignore them.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

I was concerned that it was indicative of an air of judgmentalness here, perhaps even a justified one, as a result of a disconnect between the regular posters here who just want a good forum and the new ones who come in and post a ton mostly trying to get into freerolls. I could understand that, but it would be unfortunate if it created an air of criticism.

Anyway, I don't think that's the case, most of the regulars I have chatted with have been highly amicable and there are always a few bad apples, so no worries.

Glad to hear we're mainly on your good side. The rep- was just someone who I doubt knew exactly what he was doing.

Without wishing to sound patronising, I for one have been highly impressed with your contributions to the forums so far - keep up the good work!

 

[Beriac]

Thanks, folks, I appreciate the kind words.

I wasn't aware that the impact of a person's 'rep power' with respect to how much of an effect it has when someone leaves a reputation comment... Anyway, it's no big deal, I just haven't spent much time here yet, and was concerned that this would be an on-going thing where you have to carefully consider what every single person will think of your post every time you post.

But clearly this is just a small minority of nay-sayers, with the majority being the nice folks I have enjoyed chatting with.

Thanks for all the clarification and thoughtful commentary.

Cheers!

 

[Stahanov]

I guess it's no big deal.
I like to play more than one table at and i play usuale 4 table.
I play on real money 0,5 1 $ and I play just high pair or AKs, AQs and I use my table position.

Just if I play for a big cash I prefer to study my opponents.