Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Regarding Multi-Tabling
This is a very controversial issue among the people that I hang around with at Cardplayer.com. Some are dead set against it, saying that it is impossible to play your A-game with many tables open, that there are too many opponents to keep track of. Others say that it helps them alleviate the boredom caused by the downtime that inevitably comes with poker.
I am of the second school. I always multi-table unless I am trying to relax or I'm eating while playing. Typically I will start at one table as a warm up. I will play one or two orbits at the one table. Then I open a second table and play five to ten more orbits. By this time I consider myself to be in the zone. I have a feel for these two tables and am ready to open a third. I never go over three tables though. Having four open I think crosses my personal threshold of concentration. Three I can handle, at four I start making mistakes.
I would also like to say that my style happens to be optimal for multiple tables. I do not play many hands, and thus I have a lot of down time. Having three tables worth of hands coming at me (typically 3 to 6 hands per minute as opposed to 1-2 hands per hand at 1 table) saves me from playing that K/To like AA after a long drought.
If you are a LAG player I do not think that multiple tables is the way to go. Playing that style requires you to pay attention to the players at your table. You have to see who is bluffing alot, who is folding to raises etc....You simply cannot pay attention to that kind of detail playing three tables (24 opponents) at once.
Summary:
Pros | Alleviates boredom, see more hands, profitablility/hour increases, fits the TAG player
Cons | Cannot pay attention to opponents in detail, doesn't work for the LAG player
-d.arthur
I am of the second school. I always multi-table unless I am trying to relax or I'm eating while playing. Typically I will start at one table as a warm up. I will play one or two orbits at the one table. Then I open a second table and play five to ten more orbits. By this time I consider myself to be in the zone. I have a feel for these two tables and am ready to open a third. I never go over three tables though. Having four open I think crosses my personal threshold of concentration. Three I can handle, at four I start making mistakes.
I would also like to say that my style happens to be optimal for multiple tables. I do not play many hands, and thus I have a lot of down time. Having three tables worth of hands coming at me (typically 3 to 6 hands per minute as opposed to 1-2 hands per hand at 1 table) saves me from playing that K/To like AA after a long drought.
If you are a LAG player I do not think that multiple tables is the way to go. Playing that style requires you to pay attention to the players at your table. You have to see who is bluffing alot, who is folding to raises etc....You simply cannot pay attention to that kind of detail playing three tables (24 opponents) at once.
Summary:
Pros | Alleviates boredom, see more hands, profitablility/hour increases, fits the TAG player
Cons | Cannot pay attention to opponents in detail, doesn't work for the LAG player
-d.arthur
