Posted Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:31 pm GMT by xxadrianxx
i'm playing mostly nl .1/.25 and a little .25/.5 at ps. i notice that there are a lot of people multi-tabling many tables like 5-10. whenever i try playing two or three tables i have trouble keeping track of how all the other players play and studying the history. so these people playing 5 or more tables are they so good that they can keep track of most opponents or do they play a strict game regardless of opponents style. should i assume that they're good. how should i approach these players.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:49 pm GMT by crack
It depends. You can either just play a certain type of game, or use some software to track the players. Poker Tracker and PAHUD will do the trick.
Posted Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:27 pm GMT by Skribbles
These guys just play like robots. They are not paying attention to what you are doing unless it is something insanely stupid.
Posted Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:48 pm GMT by xxadrianxx
if they're just playing supertight games and 5+ tables on the.1/.25 or .25/.5 how much $$ are they making??
Posted Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:45 pm GMT by exit music
If you get rakeback and simply play standard poker, assuming you don't run too badly you can make good money simply off rakeback or FPPs. As with almost everything in poker, the good players can make very good money playing 12 tables no problem.
Think of it this way, if you can make 8bb/100 playing 2 tables, but make 3bb/100 playing 10 tables, you can accumulate money, FPPS and experience. You also deal with variance way better when you play lots of tables.
Posted Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:22 pm GMT by tame_deuces
You can make some nice $$$ on multitabling. I'm not the greatest multitabler but I used to 4 table limit quite abit w/2 6-max and 2 full ring tables (0.5/1 and 1/2 FL 6-max is usually retarded, you can play like a full ring nit and people still try to make all kinds of moves on you, so you don't have to pay much attention) on prima, which has quite fast action compared to many other skins.
You def. play more mechanical so you give up a small edge, on the plus side you usually run more 'balanced' also, so you won't go mad when you lose at 1 table...tho running bad at all can be a major pain.
I also used to 3-table 6-max NL, and w/3 tables you can still pay good attention to the tables. An ok trick is if you get a real live one at a table is to close down a little so you can focus more on him.
The goal of multitabling is usually to win more $$$ per hour, and you're probably giving up a small edge of $$$/100 hands for doing so.
It's also cool when you're just grinding it out and clearing a bonus or something.
With practice, and if you want to, playing 8-10 tables is fully doable with an ok winrate.
Posted Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:06 pm GMT by jeffonline
I have just joined PS and multi table ring games up to 4 at a time. Most MT players are generally very tight players and mix it up with passive and aggressive play. We don’t get very tricky, and rarely bluff. Do we make money, yes most defiantly, we only play the best hands the best draws and use position play to our advantage. I see about 30% of the flops that’s includes defending the blinds. Are we robots and don’t get a profile on the other players, yes to some degree but you do tend to get a feel for a table and some of the other players, generally the players who come to your attention include multiple pot winners and or the aggressive style of players who are dominating a table anyway. I find it best to target these players and adjust my game accordingly.
Posted Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:35 am GMT by snoogins47
Two random notes:
1)Playing 'mechanically' and having less of a specific read on individual players does not have anything to do with playing super-tight/never bluffing.
2)You'd be surprised at the information that experienced multitablers, sometimes with the help of pokertracker, can get/use on people... though it's still considerably less than those who focus on one table at a time.
As for making money, it all depends on how many tables they play, how well they play, game selection, yadda yadda. But to throw it in quick perspective, if we assume 6PTBB/100 hands of winrate, playing ~5 tables at a time putting us at around 300 hands an hour, that works out to about $18/hr at .25/.50 NL. Winrate and hand count are completely pulled out of my arse here, but the winrate is reasonable for a decently skilled player.
However, much of the ability to successfully multi-table comes from experience: the quicker and more accurately we are able to assess a situation, the more tables we can play without severely blowing our winrate to hell. That quickness generally comes from experience with that software, experience with the game, and experience handling multiple tables at once. I strongly suggest that anybody who wants to begin multitabling start off slow, adding tables here and there until you get used to the speed of it.
Posted Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:12 am GMT by MrDarling
I am by now mean a great poker player but I almost always multi table.
You do only notice one or two players per table, and sometimes when someone make a huge weird move you are totally gobsmacked as you are not sure if they did something like that before and you simply didn't notice or maybe they really have the huge hand they represent .
I now multi 2XOmaha Hi , hi/lo and maybe HL - It can get very confusing sometimes between the hi and hi/lo....
The only reason I do that, is because its hard to get 4 tables on omaha Hi on my site in my level.
However, when I do play one table I play much better and improve my game, which should really be my top priority.
Posted Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:10 pm GMT by lwestatbus
I never multi-table for one major reason. This can be summarized by saying that I see online poker as being training for "the real thing" (which I'm clearly assuming is not online). I'm working on a pretty well thought out (though of late poorly executed) plan to learn everything I can about poker to enable me to do well at high stakes. And most of what I learn through reading, listening to commentaries or interviews, or experience convinces me that focus on the immediate table is essential.
Snoogins pretty well summarizes my point of view when he wrote:
| Snoogins wrote: | | You'd be surprised at the information that experienced multitablers, sometimes with the help of pokertracker, can get/use on people... though it's still considerably less than those who focus on one table at a time. |
You won't have Poker Tracker available at a live table (obviously). By the way, my current focus is on knowing what those "shadow" players are up to all the time--the ones that you don't notice until all of a suden they are reraising someone and you are going, "Who's this and how have they been playing before." When I was learning to drive my father would constantly demand that I tell him if I could immediately swerve into the left or right lane if I had to. I want that level of awareness of all the players at a table.
On the other hand (one U.S. president famously asked for a one-armed economist), if your goal is income and you meet the criteria that exit music and Tame_Deuces described then it is perfectly reasonable to multi-table. This is a completely rational approach.
But going back to the first hand, I don't just want to make money, I want to WIN. I want to win because I'm better than everyone else and so see doing the best I can at one table as being the best way possible to do this. I don't need the money I make at my current stakes (and the money I've been losing lately doesn't hurt me financially). I want to enjoy poker as a game and to be proud of how well I can master it. (So far it's not working well but it keeps me off the streets at night.)
Posted Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:33 pm GMT by supafrey
@ above poster
trying to "win" at a game that is significantly based on luck would be a really frustrating endeavour, dude. atleast by using money as the scorecard I can be happy from successes.. if you're looking at poker to prove to you how good/bad you are on specific nights or against certain people you've really got another thing coming. In rounders Damon's character is obsessed over beating Chan "one time" in "one night".. any serious poker player knows how silly this is.
Posted Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:05 pm GMT by Ensano
i think he was stressing more the fact that he wants to PLAY the game more... not just autopilot 10 tables at .25/.50 simply to make a small profit.. been there, done that... not very rewarding...
Posted Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:30 pm GMT by snoogins47
Well, there's obviously some part of this that can't actually be argued, but there's at least one very important part of it that's being missed:
You can't move up in the poker world without more money.
There may be something to the notion that you can improve faster by playing one table at a time... especially, if you're only shooting for playing a single table for the rest of your poker life. Of course, if you added a second table, you'd see twice as many hands. That's hardly insignificant as far as improving goes. If your goal is enjoyment, and 1 table makes you enjoy it a lot more, rock on. But the jury is still way, way out on speed of improvement, and there's basically no question over income.. and more poker income = more chance to move up and push yourself farther.
Also, if you're 10 tabling .25/.50 NL, and you're doing it because you actually know how to play... that might not make you the next bill fillmaff, but I think most people would consider that money significant.
Posted Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:12 am GMT by lwestatbus
| supafrey wrote: | @ above poster
trying to "win" at a game that is significantly based on luck would be a really frustrating endeavour, dude. atleast by using money as the scorecard I can be happy from successes.. if you're looking at poker to prove to you how good/bad you are on specific nights or against certain people you've really got another thing coming. In rounders Damon's character is obsessed over beating Chan "one time" in "one night".. any serious poker player knows how silly this is. |
In rereading my post I don't see any reference to "specific nights" or "certain people". And what's with the first couple of sentences re luck and money as a scorecard? In Rounders Damon's character also asks something like (apologies for the misquote), "If poker is a game of luck why do you see the same people at the final table year after year? What are they, the five luckiest guys in Vegas?"
| snoogins wrote: | | There may be something to the notion that you can improve faster by playing one table at a time... especially, if you're only shooting for playing a single table for the rest of your poker life. Of course, if you added a second table, you'd see twice as many hands. That's hardly insignificant as far as improving goes. If your goal is enjoyment, and 1 table makes you enjoy it a lot more, rock on. But the jury is still way, way out on speed of improvement, and there's basically no question over income.. and more poker income = more chance to move up and push yourself farther. |
Snoogins' entire argument (not just the quoted part) is very useful (as his posts usually are). I think that in the end it boils down to what economists call "taste" (why do some cowboys ride horses while others prefer a pickup truck?). My preference is to single-table, for the reasons in my original post but possibly because my aging and alcohol-pickled brain may not handle the increased input well.
Posted Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:53 am GMT by Felting
| supafrey wrote: | @ above poster
trying to "win" at a game that is significantly based on luck would be a really frustrating endeavour, dude. atleast by using money as the scorecard I can be happy from successes.. if you're looking at poker to prove to you how good/bad you are on specific nights or against certain people you've really got another thing coming. In rounders Damon's character is obsessed over beating Chan "one time" in "one night".. any serious poker player knows how silly this is. |
I think it was Daniel who said that poker is 90% luck any one hand, 50% any given day, and 10% over a career.
Those first two keep the donators coming back. The last one keeps the winners coming back.
Posted Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:38 pm GMT by supafrey
While Daniel is hardly an expert at luck (  ) he's hardly a final authority on just how much of the junk there is in this game. But that's besides the point. My confusion arises more, however, from being confused as to wlestbus' motivation from the game.
It seems like what you're saying is that you want to "practice" for the "big game" that you one day get to sit in on and "show" that you're a winner at this game. While this has obvious sacrifices in the short term (a la winrate and how quickly your bankroll rises + lets you play higher games) it seems to be because you want to "learn the game" and the best way, in your opinion, to do that, is to single table.
That iis an interesting idea, I'm just not sure if it's necessarily true, and I'm just wondering if I could interject with a bit of a theoretical question. First off, wouldn't you get to learn more situations, even half-assedly, from playing more hands spread across more tables? I mean.. that's pretty much the advantage we have over single-tabling live players, right? What takes them 25 years to see at a table takes me about 1 to 2 of multitabling - even if you argue that I could only "half" watch the tables that I'm playing, I wonder if every hour that a single tabler plays keeps him on his toes regardless. Not to mention the fact that there's the added benefit of not getting as bored playing several tables at once, thus getting you in the habit of playing profitably, as opposed to suboptimally (out of boredom).
Also, even with the most amount of skill in the world, the talent and complexity and luck involved in this game could leave you a long time final tabler and rare/non-existant winner, for example. Or a loser for 5 out of 7 days a week, but those last two days could be overshadowing the losses and keeping you in the green. Would either of these scenarios satisfy what you're trying to get out of poker? Because they're very likely. And they really shouldn't bother you - a player that's mindlessly multitabling this game for pure profit wouldn't be bothered to be in either of these people's shoes. What about you?
Posted Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:31 pm GMT by lwestatbus
| Felting wrote: | I think it was Daniel who said that poker is 90% luck any one hand, 50% any given day, and 10% over a career.
Those first two keep the donators coming back. The last one keeps the winners coming back. |
Very nicely stated. Is the second sentence your original thought? Again, very nice.
Posted Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:03 am GMT by exit music
it's pretty easy to multi table on PS, even on my 15" laptop screen I can easily handle 10, as you can see there is room for 5-6 more if I were a true robot
Posted Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:59 pm GMT by LCFC17
 I'm not a fan of that stars theme, i think its that the colours dont match the suits that annoys me. I use the shiny theme 
Posted Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:54 am GMT by jaynrhonda
At the .05/.10 NL tables, I find that I am comfortable playing up to three or four tables at a time. Then, as I take a stab at a level up, I'll only play one table at a time until my comfort and br have risen enough to spread myself out to multitables.
|
|
