[ QUOTE ]
Here's my old set-up; 2 x 30" + 1 x 24" (I now have 3 x 30")
To be honest, if you're good enough to make money playing that many tables then there's no reason not to purchase at least two 30" monitors. They pay for themselves.
http://bp2.blogger.com/_4PaNfrrYgQg/RnRq...er+Set+Up+1.JPG
[/ QUOTE ]
That is awesome!
I'm not sure where I appreciate the new 24 table thing, there are players that are really slowing the games down with it now and I'm starting to get a little tilty at it =p Not really, but still, people seem to be overestimating their abilities to navigate 24 tables at once.
As for the original poster, you definitely need two screens. Stacking on one is an option, but for me you give up so much valuable information, and you miss important details in hands. I remember when I was trialling it for a while there were a few hands where I lost count of how many players to a flop and it cost me dearly. example: 3-bet AK on the button, thought I was heads-up with a shorty, missed flop but checked to me so I shoved, missing the full stack in the blinds who'd flat called with aces =p You also miss out on crucial big pots and observing what players are stacking off with.