Do you feel your game improves a lot playing many tables of FR?

[flytrap]

I was playing my usual 4 tables of $200NL FR on Full tilt last night/this morning, and something happened that got me to thinking. I won a 200bb pot off a regular that tried to make a move on me, and instead of doing the normal thing which was just take the pot and keep playing, I started trash talking. Eventually we were sparring back and forth, and he critisized me for only playing 4 tables. I explained that I make 4bb/100 doing this, and we ended up actually having a pretty civil conversation about stakes, numbers of tables, etc. This got me to thinking. Perhaps I could play more and be more profitable. Putting profitablity aside for a moment, what number of tables do you feel is optimal for improving your game? I can see the advantage of playing a lot since you can get more hands in, see many different situations, etc, but the drawback is you don't get to analyze your own play as much, you don't learn to read the other's players as well, and you don't spend as much time on each hand while it is being played. Let's say for a minute that my only motivation was to get better. What do you feel is the optimal number of tables? 1? 12? Somewhere in between?

[myheadhurts]

[ QUOTE ]
I was playing my usual 4 tables of $200NL FR on Full tilt last night/this morning, and something happened that got me to thinking. I won a 200bb pot off a regular that tried to make a move on me, and instead of doing the normal thing which was just take the pot and keep playing, I started trash talking. Eventually we were sparring back and forth, and he critisized me for only playing 4 tables. I explained that I make 4bb/100 doing this, and we ended up actually having a pretty civil conversation about stakes, numbers of tables, etc. This got me to thinking. Perhaps I could play more and be more profitable. Putting profitablity aside for a moment, what number of tables do you feel is optimal for improving your game? I can see the advantage of playing a lot since you can get more hands in, see many different situations, etc, but the drawback is you don't get to analyze your own play as much, you don't learn to read the other's players as well, and you don't spend as much time on each hand while it is being played. Let's say for a minute that my only motivation was to get better. What do you feel is the optimal number of tables? 1? 12? Somewhere in between?

[/ QUOTE ]

Optimal? The smartarse side of me says zero, and reading books.

[flytrap]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was playing my usual 4 tables of $200NL FR on Full tilt last night/this morning, and something happened that got me to thinking. I won a 200bb pot off a regular that tried to make a move on me, and instead of doing the normal thing which was just take the pot and keep playing, I started trash talking. Eventually we were sparring back and forth, and he critisized me for only playing 4 tables. I explained that I make 4bb/100 doing this, and we ended up actually having a pretty civil conversation about stakes, numbers of tables, etc. This got me to thinking. Perhaps I could play more and be more profitable. Putting profitablity aside for a moment, what number of tables do you feel is optimal for improving your game? I can see the advantage of playing a lot since you can get more hands in, see many different situations, etc, but the drawback is you don't get to analyze your own play as much, you don't learn to read the other's players as well, and you don't spend as much time on each hand while it is being played. Let's say for a minute that my only motivation was to get better. What do you feel is the optimal number of tables? 1? 12? Somewhere in between?

[/ QUOTE ]

Optimal? The smartarse side of me says zero, and reading books.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously reading books is important, but you need to get experience sometime, which is what I'm referring to.

[diebitter]

1 and 2 if you want to bring reads and tells as your main skills at the table. You can up your winrate significantly

Above 2, it gets tough to do that properly, and need to start using stats/hud approach, at which time you may as well play 12.

[crunny]

It really depends on the individual.

-How observant are you at 1, 2, 4...etc tables?
-How quickly can you learn from experience?

personally, 3 tables gives me the best experience/observation trade off.

[BigPoppa]

Honestly, I think SH games help me more than FR. They are much more aggressive and you find yourself in more marginal situations. Reads also seem to come into play more often.

I grind out wins in FR playing 6+ tables. If I want to work on my game, I play 2-3 tables of 6max.

[ofdabeat]

I'm definitely improving playing a ton of tables, but it's not a read based improvement more like knowing the level from a to z and crushing the standard way of playing ( which is subtly different on each site each limit ect... )

It's not very clear sorry i'm tired and my english refuse to work

[subzero]

Playing a lot of tables improves your game because you can see/play a lot of hands. Experience is the best teacher. But since the goal is to make money, you have to find an optimal number of tables to play. For me, I believe it's 3-4.

[WarhammerIIC]

I think multi-tabling hurts my game a lot, to be honest. Playing only one table is too boring, though.

[GiantBuddha]

One. Watch every single hand from start to finish. Put every opponent on a range. Think about how you'd play different possible holdings even when you whiff or aren't in the hand.

I think it's good to mix it up, though. Try playing more tables. Try playing fewer tables.