Home Articles Books Coaching Free Stuff About

Multitabling Confessions

Don't miss one article! Subscribe to the Full Feed RSS or get NPA in your inbox.

So it appears I can’t handle playing six tables. I’ve always made quite a significant number of mistakes while multitabling due to time pressure, but I figured that if I practiced six-tabling I’d eventually get the hang of it. It’s probably true that I would/will eventually get the hang of six tables, but I’m going to cut back to four for the time being. I think four will be within my comfort zone.

A couple of days ago I hit multitabling rock bottom. I played the following hand:

Full Tilt, $1/$2 NL Hold’em Cash Game, 6 Players
Hand History Converter by Stoxpoker

MP: $509.25 (254.6 bb)
CO: $175.50 (87.8 bb)
BTN: $224.80 (112.4 bb)
Hero (SB): $217.15 (108.6 bb)
BB: $40 (20 bb)
UTG: $118.10 (59.1 bb)

Pre-Flop: Hero is SB with K :heart: A :spade:
UTG folds, MP raises to $7, 2 folds, Hero raises to $24, BB folds, MP calls $17

Flop: ($50) J :spade: 9 :club: J :diamond: (2 players)
Hero bets $32.50, MP calls $32.50

Turn: ($115) 2 :heart: (2 players)
Hero bets $75, MP calls $75

River: ($265) 7 :club: (2 players)
Hero checks, MP bets $286, Hero folds

The thing that was remarkable about the hand was that I played it entirely unconsciously until the river. At that point, my unconscious brain escalated the hand to my conscious brain by saying something along the lines of, “Hrmm.. conscious brain, maybe you should take a look at this one on the bottom-left. My opponent doesn’t seem to have folded yet, so you probably have a decision to make.”

The remainder of this article is insider content available to premium members only. Log in to your account or become a premium member and get instant access.

Tags: , , ,

14 Responses to “Multitabling Confessions”

ScotchMist
@ Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:56:43 AM
1

Nice to know a Pro can suffer ths same kind of problems as microfish like me. I only have 11,000 hand under my belt at LHE ring games. When I moved up a level I thought my 4 table routine would work. quickly realised that even up 1 level at micro stakes there appears be a slightly better quality player and my winning sessions turned into a few bad losing sessions.

I cut back to 2 tables and saw a marked improvement in my decision making. So… I prefer to build my confidence with steady if not exciting wins – rather than have the variance multi-tabling seems to bring me so far.

Ed Miller
@ Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:39:35 AM
2

Good to hear that you’re doing better on 2 tables than you were on 4. You’ll definitely improve faster if you’re thinking more about every decision you make. That’s another huge benefit of playing fewer tables.

I’ve played live for 6+ years, but really only in the past three months have I played online with any seriousness.

The edges in online play are much thinner than those in live play. I think your per-hand winrate for a typical live $2-$5 game is probably 3-4x your per-hand winrate in an online $2-$4 or $3-$6 game. That’s a huge difference.

If you make regular dumb/not paying attention mistakes in a live game, your winrate might drop by 10-15% or so. But in the equivalent online game your winrate may drop by 50% or more, which is really pretty crippling.

So when I caught myself putting half my stack in on autopilot, I realized I was probably misplaying hands below the radar pretty frequently, and my per-hand winrate for 6 tables was probably half or less of what it could be if I actually consciously made every decision.

I guess it’s no surprise that I have trouble 6-tabling. I’ve never had a fast game-playing brain. I used to play chess, and I was decent at the long tournament games, but terrible at the fast blitz games. To some extent I think it’s a skill that you can practice and get better at, and to another extent I think some people have more fast brain talent than other people.

Greyzy
@ Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:41:39 PM
3

I wonder if anybody made the same experience as me: when I went from 1 table to 2 tables I found that I played with more concentration than before. I haven’t gone past 2 tables yet, but so far the increased action keeps me from being distracted/bored while out of the hand.

Greyzy

Ed Miller
@ Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:43:26 PM
4

Greyzy,

I’m the same way, actually. One table isn’t enough to maintain my concentration online. My mind wanders and I start trying to do something else at the same time. That’s how I initially started multitabling.

Steve Boyd
@ Sun Apr 20, 2008 05:55:34 PM
5

I think that you do need to play a different style of poker the more tables that you have open at once. (read: tighter and simpler)

You hear of people doing up to 24 tables cascaded, which must make it near impossible to do anything other then binary all-in/fold decisions with a small stack

Ed given how much analysis you seem to do im not surprised that you’ve having some difficulty with 6 tables. A simple pleb like myself is fine with 6 because i’m generally just working with predefined plays.

Ben Attenborough
@ Mon Apr 21, 2008 05:25:39 AM
6

I find it useful to check how many tables each player at my table is playing. Often you will find people at 8+ tables which often means they can be manipulated because they have so little time to make a decision – this might be a raise to push them off a marginal hand, or a shove with a very strong hand knowing they do not have the time to work out pot odds or what is going on. Although you’d think multi-tablers would be good players I often find they are action junkies and play very badly. What do you think Ed?

Deryl G
@ Mon Apr 21, 2008 08:36:59 AM
7

I’m curious if anyone multi-tables without using any software-assitance (HUD’s and such). I single table because I feel like when I play more than one table I just can’t get a read on my opponents. However, I don’t use any software to assist me.

W. C.
@ Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:27:30 AM
8

I think in order to maximize your play when multi-tabling you have to play tighter. If you eliminate all the marginally profitable hands, you give up very little. However, you reduce the number of times you have to play 2-3 hands at the same time. In addition, most of the marginal hands are the type that put you in a position of having to really concentrate in order to avoid a large mistake.

There’s no question in my mind that my game starts to deteriorate after 2 tables (and I don’t have much of a game to start with – lol). It’s also a hell of lot less fun and satisfying playing semi-robotic poker in an effort to make an extra few dollars. I might as well get another job.

I think the only time playing a real lot of tables makes sense is when you are working off a bonus or getting some other form of rebate that is tied to the number of hands you play. Then the faster bonus probably offsets the additional mistakes – but it’s still no fun and not the least bit satisfying.

B.Miles
@ Mon Apr 21, 2008 01:00:51 PM
9

I’m curious about how you would have played the hand with more time to think about…

ed4fun
@ Mon Apr 21, 2008 04:42:12 PM
10

I’ve be playing 2 tables for the last year, and my 1k is now 2k. Then 2 weeks ago I wanted to add another table, but was having problem with the screen display for 3, so I went to 4 tables which work for my screen. After quickly winning $50, in a week, then lossing $70 in 3 days, I spent some time on Poker Tracker looking at my plays. When I was playing 4 tables, I lost track of my position, and was playing out of position too often. The other problem I had was calling River full pot bets when it was cleared that my middle hand was not good. The last area of a problem for me was not Value betting on the River, I was checking hands down that I should have bet. So I’m back to playing 2 tables again, and making better decissions. Thanks for all you do for teaching me to play better poker, your books, video, and Stoxpoker Videos.

GrumpyB
@ Tue Apr 22, 2008 07:54:58 AM
11

Thank you so much for this. I have been playing two tables for six months but then when I read about kids playing 24 tables on 18″ laptops I feel really, lets say, “challenged”.

So I jumped up to 4 tables for a couple of days but then I did so badly (stupid, stupid plays) I’ve fallen back to two again.

What makes this even more stupid is the fact that my target is not, for now, financial. I have a good full-time job and the wins and losses at NL25 and NL50 make no difference to my lifestyle.

My aim is to be a better player, and I’m sure that thinking more about fewer tables is a better strategy. I guess I gave in to a kind of peer pressure or, what is surely worse, wanted to show that I could keep up with the young folk. How sad is that?

greg
@ Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:58:58 PM
12

If i play fewer than 4 tables, I get so bored that I play too many hands or have to read the forums or something. 6 tables is fine as long as the tables don’t keep breaking, but i find usually I am constantly doing table hopping/table so I try to keep 5 tables going. If I could play and never have tables break and never have a shortstack sit it a bad relative position and never get a LAG sitting to my left, then 6 tables isn’t so bad, but all that other stuff makes it too hard. 4 tables is easy as pie.

deadmoneywalking
@ Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:03:01 PM
13

Ok, I’ll be the clueless kid in the corner. What was the mistake? Should you have called the river with no pair? or not bet the turn?

tobori
@ Thu Apr 24, 2008 05:10:23 AM
14

from semi-clueless to clueless-

i’m shutdown after the flop call by villain. like you said-
don’t bet the turn.

tobori

Leave a Reply




You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>