Theory of multitabling...

[BigErf]

I have gone back and forth between multi and single tables and am still not sure of the correct choice. Any serious player will advise that paying attention to your opponents is very important so it should go without saying that the more tables you play will decrease your awareness.
I find that I personally do better at one table so logic says play just one but I see so many online pros multitabling. Not sure if Im overlooking the concept but it seems if you take the buy ins from multis and play just one higher stake game this may be profitable...?
I understand that your multi table strategy has to focus more on playing the cards more than the people but isnt poker a game of people? Just looking for some feedback from both sides.

[Lagtastic]

i found multitabling the high limits on bodog very nice for several reasons

1)bodog (at least when i was playing a couple months ago) will only let you play 3 tables at a time, so you can still pay attention to your opponents.

2)also at bodog you see the same people over and over again in the 200 (10h) and 220 (6h) SNGs (--shoutout to ohanna and texas limit king) so you pretty much have a read on them going in.

3)and for me, as a impatient online player, my thirst for action is quenched alot easier with more then one table...

[mattak]

Most multitabling players can maintain full focus up to about 4 tables or so then the attention to detail goes down a bit. No one will argue that the more tables you play the less your focus on tells and betting patterns.

The reason people multi table is that if you are a winning player on one table at a certain winrate, you can double your hourly income by playing two tables, triple by playing 3 etc. Even if your winrate slips a little on each individual table you still are ahead on your hourly rate.

eg.

player is beating 100NL for 5BB/100 hands on one table. He is making $5 per hour.

if the players starts playing 4 tables his win rate goes down to 3BB/100 hands because of lack of focus etc. He is now making $12 per hour.

In the end, what is more important? Pretty easy decision imo.

[Absolution]

When you include rackback and VIP programs, some people prefer the volume as well. For example, at 4-5 tables I have no problem keeping up with the action and getting reads (of course, not as good as 1-2 tabling.) When I move above that though I basically become a break even player. I can 9 table, but I probably make about 0.5BB/100, if that. However, if you include the rackback and VIP programs I actually make more than just 1-2 tabling since I can get so many hands in.

[6471849653]

If I am playing my bankroll (I may not be) when I am trying to move up, I would play just one table and focus very well for many reason, and not the least because that way I will learn the type of the game there and learn better. But if I have done that already, I will be playing two tables (at easy games I would play up to eight tables if they are all good) if my edge is good enough. Two tables will add 100%, the third adds only 50% and drops player observation profits more or less badly. So, two seems good, though I am talking about shorthanded games (not sure about full ring games but there is some similarity). But if the edges are marginal, it's not worth it to play two tables, but it could be worth it to play more tables (50% drop per table times X-tables). IMO, everyone should aim to play at least two tables.

[br.bm]

use the 20 buy in rule and play as many tables as you can handle properly.
I started with one table and then played 4 tables for ~4 month. On fulltilt I used to play 8 or 12 tables for a long time. Now I like to play 6 because I can get reads and receive cards fast enough.

[ttgirl]

with pahud at low stakes you dont need reads on players to be a big winner

[sweeng8]

Also depends on the kind of game you are playing and the limits. I used to multitable 8 tables of 0.5/1 NLH full ring. Didnt really need too many tells or betting pattrens to win at this limit, just sitting tight and playing big hands. Also, playing tournies many people play to quite a strict formula that you can do multitabling. I know people can play shorthand multitable as well but that is way beyond me.

[Wardfish]

I can only manage to play well at one table.

That said I am currently playing 5-10 (Full ring, but happy to play short-handed to start the game) and believe that I can maintain a long-term winrate of over 5 PTBB/100.

For me, i'm not sure that I could maintain a win-rate of 1.25 playing 4 tables, as it all happens too fast. Obviously increased rake-back would help, but with a lower win-rate comes increased variance.

Playing one table, I also find that I have ample time to review my play thoroughly. Also, I find that I enjoy it more when I can totally focus on the game. I especially enjoy being able to pick up subtle changes in the mood of other players, and can sometimes profit nicely from this extra info.

[boricua]

I four-table low- and middle-stakes shorthanded no limit holdem.

The main benefits for me are the constant action; the VIP, bonus, and rakeback; and the fact that it keeps me disciplined and tight. A leak of mine is to loosen up if I'm cold-decked one-tabling; it happens much less multitabling. When you hit a flop or have a premium hand on one table, you're much less likely to make loose preflop calls on another table at that moment.

Multitabling also keeps me in a zen state; I don't worry about having my AA cracked, because I know I'll play a premium hand again within the hour.

The biggest drawback for me is tilt. When you tilt multitabling, you can mount up some impressive losses.