Multi-tabling Vs. Step Up

[CardRG]

Not that I’m ready for multi-tabling—I sometimes struggle to hold my own playing one table--but I had a question. I’ve just recently moved up from 1-2 to 2-4 limit. Would multi-tabling two 1-2 tables have been equivalent.

Complexity wise?

Needed bankroll wise?

Potential win wise?

For that matter, what about four 0.25/1.00 tables?

The question is whether multi-tabling a level that you can normally crush a wiser decision than moving up to a single table at a higher level where the opponents may be more ferocious, more wily.

[ncboiler]

I would never move up if I couldn't multi table at a given level.

[somapopper]

I'd say you should at least try 2 tables at 1/2 before going to 2/4. I believe bankroll requirements should be pretty close for multitabling and single table, keeping in mind though that a slight drop in your bb/100 is to be expected for each table added.

In light of recent developments, part of your decision should be based on your poker goals. Are you still trying to develop your internet game, or are you hunkering down for the long winter and preparing for B&M? If the former, multitabling is a pretty necessary component as once you're used to it, you'll probably want to at least 4 table the highest limit you're comfortable with and rolled for.

Getting the hang of multitabling is partially just regular poker playing experience. Have you logged 50k hands yet? I think that's about the point most folks should be able to handle a second table. Eventually playing one table will feel very slow to you.

[euphuistical]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say you should at least try 2 tables at 1/2 before going to 2/4. I believe bankroll requirements should be pretty close for multitabling and single table, keeping in mind though that a slight drop in your bb/100 is to be expected for each table added.

In light of recent developments, part of your decision should be based on your poker goals. Are you still trying to develop your internet game, or are you hunkering down for the long winter and preparing for B&M? If the former, multitabling is a pretty necessary component as once you're used to it, you'll probably want to at least 4 table the highest limit you're comfortable with and rolled for.

Getting the hang of multitabling is partially just regular poker playing experience. Have you logged 50k hands yet? I think that's about the point most folks should be able to handle a second table. Eventually playing one table will feel very slow to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

50k hands at a single table? I am still a micro player and I haven't played many hands (25k or so) but almost all of it was either 4 or 6 tables. Playing more than a couple hands at a single table would drive me mad.

[somapopper]

yeah, 50k might be a bit much. I didn't really think about how long that would take to play at one table which is kinda the point, isn't it?

[acesovercole]

I haven't met a more ferocious card player than that of someone who played 2-4. Like tigers they were. Blood-thirsty tigers.

[Harv72b]

[grunch]

If you are serious about making money while playing online poker, then at some point you should learn to multi-table. But you don't need to do it now, and especially if you're still working on ironing out significant holes in your game (many new 2/4 players are), you probably shouldn't do it now. Or if you do, stick to just two tables at a time until you are confident that you can crush your chosen limit while 2-tabling.

For most players, multi-tabling will (eventually) increase their earn rate in hourly terms. At first it probably won't--I well remember the first time I tried to 2-table, and how utterly lost I felt with "all that action". Now I find myself getting bored while playing 4 tables at a time, and doing things like keeping up instant messages or half-watching tv while I play. That probably means I need to add another table or two, but I'm not quite ready to hook up a second monitor just yet. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Right now, this very instant, if you starting two-tabling 1/2 then you would probably have a higher per hour expectancy than you have at 2/4. You're more familiar with your typical opponents at 1/2, you're used to the way those games are typically played, and you are comfortable and confident at those tables. However, you would not be improving your own game as much, if at all...you would instead be focusing on getting used to the additional action you get by 2-tabling, and you'd have little if any motivation to improve your overall poker skills--if you're beating up 1/2 for 2.5 BB/100 hands, is it going to be more worth your while to iron out a couple of minor (for that limit) leaks in order to push your earn rate up 3 BB/100, or to add on more tables to increase your hourly rate?

Understand, the more tables you play, the lower your WR/100 hands will go, and the slower your progression as a poker player will become. The happy medium lies in finding the point which gives you the maximum possible of both--still improving your overall game, but also earning as much money as you can in order to fuel your bankroll (and wallet).

Multi-tabling, at least in the small/micro stakes, does not require a bigger bankroll than 1-tabling does. 300 BBs should suffice, with 500 being a safer number (especially if you cannot afford to reload the account out of your pocket).

My advice? Stick to 1-tabling at least until you have improved to the point where you feel confident in the 3/6 game. You should also think about branching out to short-handed games (these are typically much easier to beat than full ring games at the same limit, once you get used to the increased aggression & having to play more hands). When/if you do decide to try 2-tabling, drop down a limit from whatever you're currently playing at first, as you will struggle for a bit to keep up.

[/grunch]