Multiple Tables: Is more better?

Amy C

Heeding the call for more posts - I thought I'd scout for a little advice and comment for a column I've been toying with.

More is usually better - and I can think of at least one thing where multiples are definately better ("O" I think you can guess). But what about playing multiple tables online? What have people's experience been when playing multiple tables? How many do you play at the same time? Are there ways to do this more constructively than others - or is this just a fool's errand?

Any and all comments are welcome - and quotable,

Thx,
Amy Calistri

Unknown

and I can think of at least one thing where multiples are definately better ("O" I think you can guess)

I like your style.

As for the matter at hand, I think playing multiple tables can be profitable, but I don't do it all the time, or to excess. My most profitable cash-game experience came during a period of three or so months, and during those months I was at a site (PokerRoom.com) that only let you play one table at a time.

I think they've changed that rule since, though. Regardless, playing one shorthanded table for hours on end eventually made me feel like I knew my opponents like the back of my hand. Of course, they probably felt the same way about me, but I *try* to mix up my cash-game styles a lot. Whether or not I succeed in this is another matter.

Last night I was playing in a 7 card stud tournament, a NL tournament, a 15/30 cash game and a 30/60 cash game at the same time. I don't recommend it. By the time I got my head around what game I was looking at and what I should do in it, another screen was demanding my attention. Choatic, I guess, would be the word to describe it. Also, for me anyways, playing this many games doesn't allow you to implement much more than an ABC strategy. Good cards? Raise. Good draw? Call. Bad cards? Fold. This type of strategy may be good enough to beat some lower-limit games where--at times--*nobody* is really paying much attention, but the 30/60 players will usually recognize when a player is on auto-pilot, and will take advantage of it.

So, to summarize, I'm usually very comfortable with playing any *2* games at the same time. Full table games help, because the time you spend waiting for your next hand at one table can be spent trying to develop a strategy for the other.

Also, I'll play a tournament and one limit game without much trouble. Hope all that helped.

Regards,
all_aces

ScottyZ

I don't really have too much to say about this since I almost never play more than one table simultaneously.

I've tried it a few times, and realized that there is just too much for me to think about playing at one table, even if I'm playing in a "simple" game.

I'm probably much busier than most players when playing online watching the other players' actions, bouncing back and forth from the game to PokerTracker, and getting the odd sandwich, burrito, and/or tomato juice.

The times I have tried playing multiple tables, I certainly felt that I could handle it, but in a funny way I found it *more* boring to play multiple tables (although I've heard many relate the opposite as a reason *for* multiple table play) because my strategy must become so much more rote, as all_aces refered to.

Hehe, looks like me not having much to say turns out to be a somewhat long post after all.

and I can think of at least one thing where multiples are definately better ("O" I think you can guess)

Cirque du Soleil shows?

ScottyZ

Unknown

This type of strategy may be good enough to beat some lower-limit games where--at times--*nobody* is really paying much attention, but the 30/60 players will usually recognize when a player is on auto-pilot, and will take advantage of it.

Re-reading my post, I now realize that the above line kind of makes it sounds like I think that everyone who plays low-limit poker is clueless. :redface: I just wanted to say, that wasn't my intention. Most low-limit players who post here pay just as much attention to their game--if not more attention--as I do to mine. Here's what I *meant* to say:

This type of strategy may be good enough to beat some lower-limit games where--at times--a lot of players aren't paying enough attention to how tight/loose or passive/aggressive their individual opponents are, and consequently may not be adjusting their style to counter that of their opponent's.

Recognizing when a player is on auto-pilot (sometimes because he/she is playing too many tables) is something that I've been trying to work on lately. It's relatively easy to win money from these players, and it's also relatively easy to avoid losing money to them. Just about everyone who posts here is already aware of these facts, regardless of what limits they're playing at. Obviously, though, there are a lot of 'new' players at the very low limits out there who may not be taking a close enough look at their opponents.

Regards,
all_aces

Unknown

and getting the odd sandwich, burrito, and/or tomato juice.

Mmmmm.... tasty tasty burrito....