Are multi-table players ‘solid’ or just bored?

[GrumpyB]

About me first – I’m into my third month playing and after a month loosing everything I could lay my hands on I am now grinding my way back (all thanks to HoH 1 2 and 3). OK, I know I have not played enough to draw any conclusions (averaging 9BB/100 over the past 7,000 hands) – but it’s starting to feel good.

With a bankroll back up to $150, and as a beginner, I play .05/.10 NL tables – one at a time. Not only because I’ve got a small brain and get lost easily but because I reckon that by concentrating on one game I can think about who is doing what at the table and learn much more, faster than by spraying money around on lots of tables. So a slower cash-back curve but a faster learning curve – I hope!

Here’s the question. I see the same names popping up and “find player” shows these guys are playing 4, 6 or even twelve 10NL games at the same time! So is it safe to assume that these multi-table players (there can be 5 or 6 of them at a 10 seat table on a Saturday afternoon!) only play good cards and don’t bother with any “moves” as they don’t stick around long enough to pick up any reads? And, just out of curiosity, why a player would spread $120 around twelve 10NL tables? Wouldn’t they get a better return for less risk playing four 25NL tables instead?

[LordBrun]

[ QUOTE ]
I reckon that by concentrating on one game I can think about who is doing what at the table and learn much more, faster than by spraying money around on lots of tables. So a slower cash-back curve but a faster learning curve – I hope!

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very true. Read a lot and then play one or two tables. Thats a recipe for success [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

Here’s the question. I see the same names popping up and “find player” shows these guys are playing 4, 6 or even twelve 10NL games at the same time! So is it safe to assume that these multi-table players (there can be 5 or 6 of them at a 10 seat table on a Saturday afternoon!) only play good cards and don’t bother with any “moves” as they don’t stick around long enough to pick up any reads? And, just out of curiosity, why a player would spread $120 around twelve 10NL tables? Wouldn’t they get a better return for less risk playing four 25NL tables instead?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's safe to assume they play nothing but premium hands. You dont want to tangle too much with these guys. They'll probably fold to steals a lot though.

The reason for playing 10 tables of NL10 instead of a few NL25 tables? Not big enough bankroll is probably the most common reason. The player might also feel that he is not comfortable playing NL25 yet but feels he can beat the NL10 tables for a good win rate while multi-tabling hard.

[geoncic]

I am a beginner, but I don't find it too difficult to pick up reads when 3-4 tablings. Just spend the down time looking at the hand histories on that table for the session. Get and use poker tracker to your advantage and multi-tabling can be quite possible.

[DQuadfather]

I wouldn't assume anything and, instead, just observe. Some multitablers may only play solid hands; others may have a wider range.

I, for instance, play 4-6 tables whenever I play, but take plenty of stabs at pots without a hand depending on my opponents' previous play, thier stacks, the texture of the flop, their betting patterns, etc.

I think it comes down to identfying how a particular multitabler plays.

[zooot]

IMO a multitabler at microstakes (3+ tables) will *generally* play in a straightforward manner.

That being said, I would not assume they are good/bad or a winning/losing player simply based on their ability to multitable. Some are solid and play multiple tables to increase their earn. Some get bored at 1 table. Some are there to gambolll.

In other words, what DQ said, don't assume too much until you get some evidence. Then, take a note.

[GrumpyB]

OK, thanks for the tips guys. I think I've been too scared of them for a while "ooh - these guys must be good" and been a bit too quick to fold to small bets. Sounds like I should give them some respect (I guess they can't afford to be fish AND multitable) but not get stuck on the idea - get a better idea as I see how they play.

Thanks again guys, still got lots more old posts to read, lots to absorb, but it's great having people out there to ask. I've still got loads more dumb questions - but I'll save those till I've checked out the forum history. [Already done all the FAQ [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ]

[lucky_mf]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I've been too scared of them for a while "ooh - these guys must be good" and been a bit too quick to fold to small bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of being good is recognizing when you can be moved off a hand.

Lucky

[GrumpyB]

That sounds like good advice, but I'm not sure I've got it right. I guess you're saying I should bite the bullet and call a few more times - even if I loose - otherwise they'll be on to me and bluff me away with nothing?

[lucky_mf]

[ QUOTE ]
That sounds like good advice, but I'm not sure I've got it right. I guess you're saying I should bite the bullet and call a few more times - even if I loose - otherwise they'll be on to me and bluff me away with nothing?

[/ QUOTE ]

My only point was that you should not assume that good players always have a hand when they bet. In NL-PL (and short handed play in particular) good players pick up pots when other players are weak (either are weak players literally or have weak holdings), even when they don't have pat hat.

Lucky

[Harv72b]

One of the final tablists in the WSOP ME this year was a fairly well-known online player (I won't give his name in case anyone is waiting for the telecasts); his Stars account was actually suspended for a while because of allegations that he was a bot, brought about by the fact that he was playing more than 40 (!) sit & gos at a time.

That's pretty extreme, but for a winning player it makes sense to play more tables. As far as why they don't play fewer tables at higher stakes, well, it's a question of bankroll & how confident they are against the opposition. If you have a limited bankroll but know that you can beat 25NL for a certain win rate, it may well make more sense to multi-table that rather than move up to 50NL.

In the most general terms, the more tables a player is on the tighter and more straightforwardly he will play. A full-on multi-tabler might be perfectly content to play ABC poker and just trust his opponents to make enough mistakes to give him the desired win rate. You do have to be careful, though, as "straightforward" play can vary from player to player...a more accurate way of describing it would be to say that a multi-tabler rarely strays from his normal style of play. If his normal style of play is loose & erratic, he's still going to be doing that. At the lower stakes, though, you shouldn't have to worry too much about players like that.

I also see quite a few losing players multi-tabling, FWIW, including a few that I have on my buddy lists. I just presume that they get bored playing 1 table at a time & need to fuel their gamble by adding games. I don't complain because that just means that I can take their money on several tables at once. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Incidentally, don't feel like you have to start multi-tabling. As a fairly new player you probably shouldn't be anyway--stick to one table as you build your bankroll & skills. I probably 1-tabled for 6 solid months before my first (incredibly awkward) attempts at multi-tabling.