multitable winrates

[Erudis]

does anyone have some good stats showing the difference, if any, in their winrate when moving from 2 tables, to 4 tables, to 6 tables, to 8 tables, etc?


with rakeback in mind, i'm trying to figure out a MaxPoint where winrate + rakeback is the highest. obviously it will be different for everyone, but i would suppose that there would be a somewhat common drop-off point (moving from 4 tables to 6 tables resulted in some small drop-off; moving from 6 tables to 8 tables resulted in a larger drop-off, etc)

i'd prefer stats from 400nl and 600nl but all numbers welcomed!

[BHold]

First, I doubt many people have significant samples at the same limits playing different number of tables.

Second, you can't just look at winrate like that, you also have to consider how much you are learning as you play. Playing something like 4 tables may seem like it is lowering your potential hourly right now, but I also believe you will learn much more and potentially be able to be move up sooner.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
First, I doubt many people have significant samples at the same limits playing different number of tables.

Second, you can't just look at winrate like that, you also have to consider how much you are learning as you play. Playing something like 4 tables may seem like it is lowering your potential hourly right now, but I also believe you will learn much more and potentially be able to be move up sooner.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is sort of the conventional wisdom but i've always been skeptical. if you play 6 tables instead of 4 then you get 50% as many hands in, so you have to be learning way more per hand if you play 4 to make it more educational. if you only play 4 tables you get more stretches where nothing remotely interesting happens.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
First, I doubt many people have significant samples at the same limits playing different number of tables.

Second, you can't just look at winrate like that, you also have to consider how much you are learning as you play. Playing something like 4 tables may seem like it is lowering your potential hourly right now, but I also believe you will learn much more and potentially be able to be move up sooner.

[/ QUOTE ]

if somebody were clever i'm sure they could write something to query a SQL database and figure it out. we all have lots of hands with different number of tables as tables close and have to get reopened and whatnot.

[Erudis]

I'm sort of past the learning curve part where playing more or less tables will have an affect on my education as a player.

what i'm interested in is whether there's a significant statistical point to be made with respect to winrate

[LucidDream]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sort of past the learning curve part where playing more or less tables will have an affect on my education as a player.

[/ QUOTE ]

i doubt it seeing as you said you want stats from 400/600nl players...but then again maybe you're the best msnl player out there.

[Erudis]

the point was that playing 8 tables as opposed to 6 is not going to teach me anything new at this point. not that i have nothing left to learn at all...

people just look for things to say against other people around here. the reason i've rarely ever posted

[Chaser8]

[ QUOTE ]
First, I doubt many people have significant samples at the same limits playing different number of tables.

Second, you can't just look at winrate like that, you also have to consider how much you are learning as you play. Playing something like 4 tables may seem like it is lowering your potential hourly right now, but I also believe you will learn much more and potentially be able to be move up sooner.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP is asking whether it is worth the decrease in winrate to play 8 tables as opposed to playing 4 tables so that he can earn a higher hourly rate. If he wins 4ptbb/100 playing 4 tables, then it's not worth it to play 8 tables and earn only 2ptbb/100 (he breaks even). However, if he plays 8 tables and earns 3ptbb/100, then he's making a higher hourly rate than playing 4 tables.

If you want to double your tables, you cannot cut your winrate in half because you'd be breaking even.

My opinion is that it's possible for many of us to play up to 12 tables while still maintaining a winrate that would yield a higher hourly rate than playing 4 tables. However, it will take practice to get to that level. So start off with 4, then 6, then 8, and so on until you feel that you've hit your max potential. 4 or 6 tables is definitely not the max potential for most of us, I believe. As it stands now, we'll need Poker Tracker 3 to come out so we have the power to run the query that answers your question.

[dangerfish]

I am currently playing 10-12 tables 200 and 400 max in order to figure this out. I plan to play about 150k hands this month and see if that sample tell me anything. So far the winrate is at 3.5bb/100 so not exactly killing it but not bad either when you consider thats just under 1k hands an hour.

[Erudis]

i've played at non-PT able sites for all of this year and much of last year so the numbers below take into account a bit of guesswork (as i don't have an exact hand count or BB count)


i noticed sifting through my logs that my winrate last year was 2.8BB/100 higher than this year. (hand count for last year was near 1 million hands, well over that for this year)

here are the things that have changed from last year to this year:

1. last year i averaged about 5 tables at a time, this year it is 8 tables at a time
2. this year i'm generally playing higher stakes than last year
3. i believe that i'm a better player this year than last year (which i'm supposing would cancel out #2)

hence the reason i'm bringing this discussion up

i'd like to fine the MaxPoint where i make, as a previous poster mentioned, the highest hourly rate, the largest bottom line

statistical data and hard numbers i think would be helpful if anyoen has them. insight/speculation is also good too (but by itself not enough)