# of tables question for the forum
 

After a discussing with Tongni yesterday about multitabling and winrate, I'm beginning to question my own decision to 6-8 table the mid-limit the 6max games (30/60-50/100) once I start playing almost full time.


I've been thinking a lot about my past successes and failures in poker, and everything seems to point to playing less tables. Essentially, every good run I can think of has occurred during periods when I've chosen to play 3-4 tables MAX (including my insane runs at 300/600 and 500/1000) and my long breakeven stretches seem to correspond to the times when I start running bad, and decide to start "grinding": 8 tabling 30/60 full, or 6+ tabling shorthanded games, etc.

This can of course be due to coincidence. Actually, I feel like I play just as well when playing 6+ tables vs 4 tables, and get pretty bored doing the latter. (PS: if anyone has seen me playing 6-8tabling 6max on stars 10/20-30/60, what do you think of my play? Do you ever feel like I make obviously poor decisions as a result of multitabling?)

So my question here is for all you SHLHE players: how many tables do you play?

I've also decided to start posting in MHSH and SSSH. I'm taking next quarter of classes very light and will have lots of time to devote to poker. Improving my game hasn't been a priority for the past 5 or 6 months and I think that has been detrimental to my game.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

I've been playing 4, sometimes (but rarely) 5 lately, though one is usually HU or 2-3 handed and I like it a lot. I found playing 6 tables a little stressful and while the amount of hands/hour was greaters, i played a lot less and didn't play as well. I think I enjoy 4 more and that has done wonders for my winrate.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

I usually have 4-7...But Id be far better off if I kept that number closer to 4

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

i am playing 4-table 6max 15/30 to 30/60. sometimes 5 tables if the games are really good(very rare). more tables will cause me to ignore a lot of details and actually decreases my win rate.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

I can only manage 2 HU tables, maybe 3-4 3-4 handed tables, and 5-7 5+ handed tables. How shorthanded the game is makes a huge impact on whether I can really multitable them.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

I play 1 sh table and 2 lh tables

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

When I used to play mostly 30/60 and 50/100 I could do 6 tables on Party or 5 tables on Stars no problem. Now that I play mostly 100/200 4 tables is my max.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

It depends on how im feeling and the toughness/shorthandedness of the games but i've always been a 1-4 tabler (I play 20/40 mostly) and have always done well with this number of tables.


I also usually start out my session 1 tabling, sopmetimes this lasts for a long time.
I used to play like 4+ and i don't think I ever won doing that.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

I max out at 2 tables. I'll sometimes only play one if it's HU. I find poker much more profitable and enjoyable if I play less tables.

That's just me though.

And OP, I don't think your observation about running better when playing fewer tables is not coincidence. I think multitabling, esp 4+ is HIGHLY overrated.

Bottom line is most cannot play 4+ tables profitably. Many think they can, few really can.

Just my .02

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

I three table usually, but there's usually a 3 or 4 handed table in there. 4 is my max for all 6 handed tables.

Edit/ I think 4 tabling on most sites is equivalent to 5 or 6 tabling on Party. Their software was excellent for multitabling, and all the other sites I've played on don't measure up(Admittedly not that many sites).

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

I only play 2. Used to play 3 on Party but where I play now I can only fit 2 tables witout overlap. I like playing 2 better so that is fine. But then, I am old.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

I play 3 on average, though sometimes 2 if one is HU, and sometimes 4 if all are 5-6 handed.

In my experience my play deteriorates more than i'm willing to admit when i'm playing 5+ tables. I play much better when I have enough time to take notes, develop reads, watch hands i'm not involved in, etc.

Surf

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

In party days I would 6-8 table the 30/50/100. Seven tables was the sweet spot, 8 got a bit hairy (it took me a while to be able to reach that many however). Now, I have more trouble finding enough good games to sit in. So I have not really done more than 6 table since Party shut down.

As far as what I think is possible to do, I think 6-8 on FT would be possible if there were ever that many games going. On stars however, there is no way I could do more than 6, in fact, since almost all are fast tables, 5 can get a bit hairy (i.e. I NEVER timed out on FT or party, but it has happened many times even just 4 tabling at stars - I HATE stars).

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

[ QUOTE ]
I three table usually, but there's usually a 3 or 4 handed table in there. 4 is my max for all 6 handed tables.

Edit/ I think 4 tabling on most sites is equivalent to 5 or 6 tabling on Party. Their software was excellent for multitabling, and all the other sites I've played on don't measure up(Admittedly not that many sites).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%.

I like to absorb every action on every table I'm playing at. Sometimes I even keep tables open where players from my tables are playing to watch.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

4 is my absolute maximum for 6 max. I probably prefer 3. Multintabling NL is much easier. I know lots of ppl that succesfully 8 table6 max NL, but no one who does that at limit.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

[ QUOTE ]
4 is my absolute maximum for 6 max. I probably prefer 3. Multintabling NL is much easier. I know lots of ppl that succesfully 8 table6 max NL, but no one who does that at limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you notice a difference in the quality of your play going from 3 to 4? For me, 3 seems perfect and leisurely and 4 can feel really panicked. Playing 4 (esp with a few 3-4h), I'll get in a mode where I start making bigger and bigger attention related mistakes because I'm trying to dismiss each table too quickly, afraid I'm falling behind the action.

Here's the worst misclick recently.. I get QJo in the hijack and open raise with it. As I'm pressing the raise button I see that it strangely says $40 instead of $20 and realize that it's been raised and three-bet by two tight players in front of me. ("You know it's time to quit when..")

Edit: on the other hand, 4-tabling 6max SSNL seems ridiculously easy, even though I have no clue what I'm doing really.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

i rarely play more than 3 nowadays. often just 1 or 2. this is mostly bc my game selection is super rigid. at this point i simply refuse to sit in games where i only have a moderate edge.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

[ QUOTE ]
i rarely play more than 3 nowadays. often just 1 or 2. this is mostly bc my game selection is super rigid. at this point i simply refuse to sit in games where i only have a moderate edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel exactly the same. I really want a table with at least close to 40% VPIP or a table where I have one really bad opponent or 2 semibad opponents to my right. I mostly 2-3 table.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

I tried playing six 6-max fast tables on stars and can't handle it - I had no problem doing this on Party. Ridiculous Stars tables where they steal focus, my mouse clicks on buttons rarely work the first time when changing focus to a new table, and the poor warning system they have all contribute IMO. So I stick to four on stars and if playing higherish limits two tables has been serving me well.

Somehow haven't played with you there yet I keep seeing you and avoiding I guess [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

-DeathDonkey

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

3-5 on FT seems to be optimal for me. Back in the party days I played 5-7.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

I'd like to say I can play 5 easily and without losing any details but since I've started doing that I've been getting killed so dunno.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

most of you are saying you could play more tables on party than stars. is this bc stars deals the hands faster? so maybe you are seeing the same hands/hr with less tables. this would increase winrate, no?

i would prefer to play less tables and see the same amount of hands. yall feel the same?

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

i never played party much. i have been 4-tabling stars 10/20 basically in the evenings. table selection at that game is fairly meh. almost all the decent guys play 3 or 4 tables, and there are usually like 10-15 running. hard to find good seats at 4 tables

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

I max at 2 tables and play lots of 2-4 handed when I can.

2 tables of 2-7 tripledraw is still very difficult for me when it goes 2-3 handed.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

[ QUOTE ]
most of you are saying you could play more tables on party than stars. is this bc stars deals the hands faster? so maybe you are seeing the same hands/hr with less tables. this would increase winrate, no?

i would prefer to play less tables and see the same amount of hands. yall feel the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stars software sucks with stealing the focus, note-taking, etc. Same thing with AP. I'll be trying to manage four tables and take notes and other tables keep yanking my cursor away, the notebox disappears, etc.. Party was really friendly and didn't force tables down your throat when it was your turn to act the way some other sites do.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

hey bro,

u can turn off stealing focus by going to advanced multitable options.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

donger, i think notes are fairly worthless.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

[ QUOTE ]
donger, i think notes are fairly worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

strongly disagree

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

i usually aim for three. i think when I start playing more than four, I focus too much on my actions and dont have time to access all my opponents tendencies. i may be alright on 6 tables if i were able to stay on the same 6 tables...but I am constantly hopping around, which messes it up more.

I think I also would rather play two 30/60 tables than 6 10/20 tables anyway. You may say that I could try 6 30/60 tables, but I'd just say I'd rather play two 180/360 tables.

I think it really comes down to knowing yourself and your strengths and weaknesses more than anything else.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

[ QUOTE ]


For me, 3 seems perfect and leisurely and 4 can feel really panicked. Playing 4 (esp with a few 3-4h), I'll get in a mode where I start making bigger and bigger attention related mistakes because I'm trying to dismiss each table too quickly, afraid I'm falling behind the action.


[/ QUOTE ]

This describes me perfectly. At this point I think that allowing myself to play more than 3 tables of shorthanded is a leak, as I can remember many, many times when playing 4 handed lead to not nearly enough attention to any of the tables and tons of stupid mistakes piling on top of each other, resulting in break even sessions that should have been small winners and losing sessions that should have been breakeven. I cannot recall a single time this has happened 3 tabling. This was a lot more noticeable on Stars than Party, I honestly don't think I even had a winning session 4 tabling Stars, but that's over less than 15k hands so it doesn't mean much I guess.

NL I 9 tabled full ring with no problem at all on 1 monitor, but I was basically a nit nut peddler, so it shouldn't be too hard.

Non-holdem sort of depends what I'm playing, I can pretty much only handle 2 different games at once and depending on what they are my max is 3 or 4 for full games and 2-3 for SH/HU.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

I have had similar results on a smaller scale winning more with fewer tables and playing more tanles with less success when I am running bad. This is really a form of tilt.

Basically though, I don't care what you do as long as you stay the hell out of my games. I am having enough trouble already.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

[ QUOTE ]
donger, i think notes are fairly worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Most of my notes are, wow he played this hand strange with a description of action, or berating him for sucking out and taking MY pot.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

For me 3 tables is pretty much perfect and I strongly prefer 3-4 handed. Often I'll have 4 tables up and on one my stack is down quite substantially and I have no real idea what happened/any of the hands. With 3 I find my attention to players increases a lot and playing on a smaller site with the same players day in and day out I find its important to know how good/bad they are playing that day rather than just relying on my default impressions of them.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

[ QUOTE ]
hey bro,

u can turn off stealing focus by going to advanced multitable options.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's on stars right? I play mainly on AP, got anything for that?

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
donger, i think notes are fairly worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

strongly disagree

[/ QUOTE ]

I find notes to be much more useful than stats.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
donger, i think notes are fairly worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

strongly disagree

[/ QUOTE ]

I find notes to be much more useful than stats.

[/ QUOTE ]

give me an example of notes saving you or making you money.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
donger, i think notes are fairly worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

strongly disagree

[/ QUOTE ]

I find notes to be much more useful than stats.

[/ QUOTE ]

give me an example of notes saving you or making you money.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's easy.. you raise OTB with QJo. SB cool calls. Flop is AJ2, SB CRs, you call.. turn 6, he bets, you call, river A he bets, you call. HH shows he had 89. You take the note: "SB cc btnrzr 89s, CR-B-B AJx-x-A brd with NHND"

then you know you can call this guy down a little lighter in the future because you now know he can spazz. How can that not be useful?

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

The useful ones for me were what do they open limp from SB,how thin do they value bet in general ,how they play HU boards with missed overcards. Stuff like that.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
donger, i think notes are fairly worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

strongly disagree

[/ QUOTE ]

I find notes to be much more useful than stats.

[/ QUOTE ]

give me an example of notes saving you or making you money.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's easy.. you raise OTB with QJo. SB cool calls. Flop is AJ2, SB CRs, you call.. turn 6, he bets, you call, river A he bets, you call. HH shows he had 89. You take the note: "SB cc btnrzr 89s, CR-B-B AJx-x-A brd with NHND"

then you know you can call this guy down a little lighter in the future because you now know he can spazz. How can that not be useful?

[/ QUOTE ]

bc this is standard. what if the guy flips an ace on the river? are you gonna fold mid pair next time? he might have 89.

Re: # of tables question for the forum
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
donger, i think notes are fairly worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

strongly disagree

[/ QUOTE ]

I find notes to be much more useful than stats.

[/ QUOTE ]

give me an example of notes saving you or making you money.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's easy.. you raise OTB with QJo. SB cool calls. Flop is AJ2, SB CRs, you call.. turn 6, he bets, you call, river A he bets, you call. HH shows he had 89. You take the note: "SB cc btnrzr 89s, CR-B-B AJx-x-A brd with NHND"

then you know you can call this guy down a little lighter in the future because you now know he can spazz. How can that not be useful?

[/ QUOTE ]

bc this is standard. what if the guy flips an ace on the river? are you gonna fold mid pair next time? he might have 89.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if a thinner calldown situation comes up? This just alerts you to the fact that the guy is capable of CR-B-B'ing without any hand or hope to improve. That info is worth something.

How can you argue that notes are worthless? They're basically a freeroll, provided that notetaking isn't too distracting.

Making notes detailing the play of tough, tricky players who mix up their play isn't worth much, but if you're in the right games, most of your opponents will play in predictable, exploitable ways.

Edit: quoted from your blog..

[ QUOTE ]

lastly, i am realizing a bit of animosity for anyone that i have associated with in the lhe arena. clearly i have glaring holes yet no one cared enough or paid enough attention to point them out, despite the opinions ive routinely offered on 2p2.


[/ QUOTE ]

Guess what?