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

[GiantBuddha]

I think multi-tabling too early in your development can stunt growth, for sure. Once most plays become automatic it can accelerate it.

[vizer02]

I would say for most people, 1-2 tables is the best number to start at to learn the most about the game. For me, it was more like 4-5 because I would get too bored and about any sooted cards started to look like A,A. Eventually you will be able to add tables, I would say add 2 more until you're comfortable, then another 2...and so on.

[HesseJam]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I can do the first thing HUD-assisted with 4 tables. There is still enough time to analyze every hand. I use the HUD more for weeding out the players where I would not use reads or tells. With 12 tables i become a click-o-mat and cannot use the info any more.

Actually, one of the most important stats for me is No of hands seen:
< 25: I do not even bother to see them, they will be used just for table averages.
< 100: VPIP PFR - thats it!
< 300: aggression, C-Bet tendencies, Position tendencies
< 1000: River tendencies
> 1000: player will be thoroughly analyzed and annotated

Sometimes, I just need to see three hands and note down "DNB!" [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[HesseJam]

On the topic:

I am with those who say the less, the better if you want to grow as a player the fastest. The optimum is probably somewhere between one and three for the most of us.

If you want to maximize earnings per hour you will have start increasing the No of tables at some point in time. The optimum No of tables at a specific level will depend on your relative skills compared to the rest of the field at that level. If you can crush one level @ 20 BB/100 single-tabling with superman reads you could probably 6-table the same level with 8 BB/100 and 12-table @ 6 BB/100.

If you are struggling single-tabling at NL 1K at 1.5 BB/100 you probably shouldnt be 6-tabling.

[mce86]

I think 4 is optimal. Playing 12 or a bunch, sure a winning player can win, but I dont think you could do that at higher, trickier levels. So much play is automatic...you can win without paying real close attention. Obviously, you will win more when you are.
I play 4, and if I have something to do while im playing, I'll play 2 in auto mode...Im never on the screen and I just wait for it to pop up.
I dont find myself real successful here, mostly just treading water hoping for a big hand.

[MyTurn2Raise]

my game improves more the more tables I play

[D.L.M.]

Some 12 tablers have a winrate close to yours.
I'd like to see your graph.
As long as you dedicate some time for session recaps you can still improve your game 12 tabling.

[oakrdrzfan]

6 tabling NL is too many for me. At limit, less of a problem.

4 Tabling NL with HUD is ok for me.