Printable View
hi, i ve been playing 25nl and it s going fairly well. I dont have so much time so i started to play on 2 / 3 table at time. I see it is fine since i am still winning but i can percieve i don t have the right attention to make the kind of thinking people are suggesting on this site.
Any thoughts?
thank you
2 or 3 tables really wont make a huge difference, but having only single tabled it may take time to adjust. Go to 2 tables until you are comfortable it isnt affecting your decisions then add another, and so on. You are definitely going to want to start multi-tabling, it doesnt wonders for your hourly rate without a huge [negative] affect on your winrate
multi-tabling is a must. definitely get used to it as fast as possible.
When does the law of diminishing marginal returns come into play? In other words, where does multi-tabling start to hurt you instead of helping you? I know it is all variant on you experience, skill, etc.
However, one would think there eventually would be a point where it would be extremely difficult to play well with so many tables running at once. 4 Tables best? 8 tables max?
with practice many can play like 8-12 tables or more without making bad bad mistakes. i would think that whenever one's $/hr starts to fall that's when it's time to cut back some.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duckslayer2k
the problem with 8-12 tabling is that you don't give yourself an oppertunity to improve as much. it is hard to really think about your play when you have to keep up and click something all the time.
I would say yes, multitable, adding more tables as you get better. then every now and then just play 1 or 2 tables at a time so that you can improve your reading ability and poker skills better. that is just my opinion.
-Beck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beck
I can agree with some of this. I have noticed that once I start 8-tabling a certain level I improve much more slowly than I was before. I think this is because when you're 8-12 tabling its much harder to think about (analyze) your game while you're actually playing. When playing 1-4 tables you have much more of an ability to feel the table texture and get solid reads. When you're 8+ tabling good math skills and proper use of your hud can make up for some of that lost information. The question is, if you could be a winning player at your stakes playing 1 table or 8, which would you rather choose?
It's all about what matters to you. If it's all about making money then play 12 tables (Assuming you don't play really bad with that many going). If it's all about being good and getting better than play 1-3 tables. Personally this poker thing is all about the money so I play as many tables as I possibly can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beck
1) some of this thinking is very hard to do with the 60sec you have to make decisions at the table. The more you play the more automatic things become.Quote:
Originally Posted by giallorosso
2) At 25NL there is very little room for advanced play, thus more complex thinking isn't necessary
Taking notes helps.
You only need to generally peg people:
calling station -> only bet made hands
weak -> cbet everything
good -> play straight up and respect their bets
I used to have the same attitude and then when I got to 200nl I realized I sucked and wasnt improving with those tables. I play poker because I like the money and the game, the money isnt going to get any better if my growth stagnates. After realizing this I cut down to 4 tables and really started working on my game. Do I plan on getting back up to 8+ tables? Yes, but not until Im consistently beating some of the mid stakes games. Until then Im just hurting myself by playing a ton of tables.Quote:
Originally Posted by martindcx1e
right so you figured out that at 200nl you didn't play well with 8+ tables and dropped it down to where your hourly rate didn't suffer anymore. good job. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by andy-akb
I've never had a decision that took more than 60 seconds. 20, maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by swiggidy
Also, I think I would throw a couple more into the mix of "pegs:"
Maniac
Aggressive Bluffer (those guys that ALWAYS c/r your pfr)
I hate those bastards.Quote:
Originally Posted by sejje
definitely start to multi ASAP...or stay with it.
just realize the more tables you open up, the more your ability to "make reads" diminishes. and this hurts your "growth as a player."
so, it becomes a balance of what you want to achieve...$$$ or skill.
and no this is not contradictory. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chopper
the idea that getting better doesn't help you make money is really weird, unless you guys have a way to play 100 25nl tables.
::Salivates::Quote:
Originally Posted by drmcboy
if you have 12 (.25/.50) tables open, and you beat the game for 2.00 BB's/100 hands dealt, you will make $12/hr, assuming a 50 hand/hr average per table.Quote:
Originally Posted by drmcboy
however, if you open only 2 tables of .25/.50, and make the same 2.00 BB's/100, you will only make $2/hr, assuming the same 50 hands/hr average.
now, surely IF you can beat the game for 2 BB/100 over 12 tables, you should have a higher win rate with less tables open...BUT can you beat the game for 12 BB's/100 with only 2 tables open? that's what it would take to make the same $12 per hour on only 2 tables.
therefore, you can have a great preflop/postflop game and make outstanding reads all the time, but you will not "outearn" the guy with a modest win-rate and 12 tables open...even though you would KILL him in a HU game. he simply has too much leverage on you with all those tables.
extreme example, but it is meant to show you that it doesnt take 100 tables to outearn somebody with a lot of skill. do i recommend opening 12 tables...NO! i dont think it makes you a better player at all, just a grinder who can pay your bills. at some point you will get to a high enough level and get CRUSHED...unless you are...
lukie...apparently. ;)
You missed the point of my post. You said that this is all about the money so you play as many table as you can; however, I say those two dont necessarily agree. Right now I do not care about my hourly rate, I did not drop down because of that. At 100nl I am sure I could have a higher hourly 8tabling, but I wouldnt be improving. I play poker mainly for the money [as well as the challenge] but realize looking at your hourly rate at 200nl and under and adjusting how many tables you play based solely on that is thinking way too short term. Im not worrying about maximizing my hourly rate at 100 or 200nl because Im not planning on staying here the entire time and would rather maximize my rate of improvement so that when I get up to the higher levels Im more prepared.Quote:
Originally Posted by martindcx1e
i'd rather just get a big bankroll as fast possible and find out if i'm good enough for higher stakes by playing them. and i actually don't care about the challenge at all. the only thing i play for is $.Quote:
Originally Posted by andy-akb
point is if you are playing so many tables you can't get better (I don't even know what that means, I would think you're always getting better, but you all brought it up) you're capping the money you can win, not increasing it. would you rather be you crushing 10 nl with 12 tables or 400nl with 4 tables?
whichever gives me a higher hourly rateQuote:
Originally Posted by drmcboy
you've been around long enough in here to realize there are several FTR "regulars" who play 8+ tables above 200NL. and if they only have a decent winrate...they will murder anything you can do with 4 tables, unless you go higher than 400.Quote:
Originally Posted by drmcboy
i, however, dont know many that 4-table 400+ with a lot of success. by success, i mean over 2BB's/100.
and, no, if you are only "roboting" 12 tables i dont care if you are at 1000NL, you are not improving. you simply cannot learn from what you have done, things happen too fast with 12 tables open.
And if you arent good enough for the higher stakes, you will improve...how?Quote:
Originally Posted by martindcx1e
All Im saying is that if you want to make the most money you should be working on your game and not worrying about your hourly while you are still at small/microstakes. You arent going to be making great money [relative to the potential amount of money out there] massively multi-tabling small stakes unless you are Rotterdaum putting in 150k hands/month, the real money doesnt really show up until you are at 400nl+ and my point is that if you arent improving your game that much you arent going to suceed at those stakes which will cost you money. But hey, you do your thing and I'll do mine. I will be interested to see where you are at in a couple of months.
QFT.Quote:
Originally Posted by drmcboy
I stepped into the world of multitabling for the first time last night. I played 2 tables of $25NL at UB. I resized the display, and though slightly blurry, it helped. I know that UB lets you drop the table down to a mini rectangle, but I find it a little tedious - especially with Pokeace going.
I found that I got used to playing two fairly quickly. There were only a couple of times that I had action on two hands simultaneously. Rather than diminishing my ability to pay attetion, I felt much more focused on what was going on at both tables. I guess that's one of my big bad habits, but when I play one table, I tend to let my attention drift away from the table to tv, internet, IMs, etc.
I also liked the ability to "squeeze" two hours of play into one hour. I think at my level, playing two tables for an hour rather than one table for two frees up an hour to review the session on PT and do reading/discussions here and elsewhere. In that way, I might be able to split the making money/improving my game to maxmize my ability to do both. I work full time during the day and really only have 2-3 hours on weeknights to play. I know there's no substitute for table time in improving your game, but what do the more experienced players on here think of that idea?
I was about to make this same point myself. I think I play optimally at 2 tables. At just one table in addition to being more difficult to focus and pay attention, I sometimes start limping or calling at bad spots just to get in on the action (especially after a run of cold cards). Playing at 2 tables this doesn't really happen, so I play a better overall game. At 3+ tables is when my game starts to get worse (but only gradually as I increase tables; I would still recommend 3+ tables).Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeChamps
I recently moved up from 3-tabling 100NL to playing four tables.
The results were good, but the way I play definitely changed quite drastically.
I went from 20/14 with 3 tables, to 16/11 four tabling, which is pretty significant. I was definitely raising from the button/blind stealing less, since I didn't feel I had enough time to worry about those marginal hands.
Do other people notice changes in their numbers when they start adding more tables?
hence the term "multi-tabling nit"
build a $2500 bankroll from bnus whoring and being a nit.
Then sit at 100nl, play 15k hands, post on FTR and figure if you have any leaks.
Improving your game should simply happen from the number of total hands you have played. More Experience should equal more skill relatove to the amount you started with.
How long before people realize that playing at 100nl and below is just all the same? You cant work on your game until you find players who actually take advantage of your mistakes.Quote:
All Im saying is that if you want to make the most money you should be working on your game and not worrying about your hourly while you are still at small/microstakes.
Nobody, and i repeat NOBODY, at 25nl/50nl will be able to take advantage of mistakes you make to the point where it will make your winrate decrease by a significant amount UNLESS you are making some large errors anyway. :?
This is also the same old same old, do you want to be good and have an average br, or average and a big br. Hence the reason i dont play on stars and play in easy games i know i can beat, perhaps even dominate, where on other sites id be a winner, but not someone capable of wtfpwing everyone.