![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Some players here have attempted to 24-table in Stars with the introduction of a higher limit of tables. As I am constrained by the current limitations of my monitor 1280 * 1024, what would be the best way to arrange these tables to minimize the chance of a misclick on a wrong tables? Are there any other software strategies that I can use?
Although 24 tables can be opened, the "tile" feature in Stars would only allow to do it with 12. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
LOL @ 24-tabling without being able to afford two 30" HD cinema displays.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
don't do it with that monitor [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I 21 table (sometimes) on a 20" and a 24". It sucks. Don't do it. You'll slow the games down and make less money. I'm getting at least 2 30's (maybe 3) if I decide to really 24 table. I'd rather not go blind from the poker.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
My Setup:
Left - 1680X1050 20" T1 - T2 - T3 T4 - T5 - T6 Right - 1600X1200 20" T7 - T8 T9 - T10 I resize the tables on the left monitor a tiny bit, and it fits great. When I add more tables, I add to T3/T6/T7/T9 so that I have 2 tables in those slots. 14 is the max I've done. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I 24 table on a 20" 1600x1200. Tables are normal sized. I have a stack of 6 tables in each corner of the screen. I use my other monitor for the lobby, winamp, browser etc. Scripts are pretty much mandatory for me. I use several. Check the software forum.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
My Setup:
Left: 24" 1900x1200 Right: 17" Widescreen 1280x800 (my right screen is the laptop. left is obviously just the external monitor) i only play with tables on my left screen...looks like this: ![]() i personally hate playing across 2 monitors...so playin on one is ideal. i might try CMAR's stack method...tho ive never used it...so i cant say if its as good as people have said it is |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ 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 ] Dude! That is a pimp setup!!! Well done! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ 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. |
![]() |
|
|