The Fallacy of Bonus Whoring and Multi-tabling

I see a ton of posts about players who look to deposit anywhere from $500 to $750 at a site and grind out $25 NLHE games to get a $500 bonus or so. Then they find another site and do it again, rinse, repeat, and there seems to be a whole culture behind doing that. However, wouldn't it be better to focus your energy on moving up limits instead of clearing bonuses? If you keep moving up, you can make it to the $200 buyin games and make all that bonus money through daily winnings many times over. I guess if a player doesn't have the skill to move up, that would be a plausible explanation, but to automatically lock in @ $25 or any limit for that matter and not try to move up seems shortsighted.

Along those same lines, I hear about many players that love to multi-table anywhere up to 14 or 20 tables at once. I think the ability to multi-table is a huge benefit of Internet play compared to live play, however, I see two big drawbacks to excessive multi-tabling. For one, I want to play poker - get reads, play the player, play the situation, bluff, make a tough decision, put my opponent to a tough decision, and the like. When you multi-table more than 4 tables or so, for MOST players, you turn into a robot. You can't take effective notes. You can't get reads. You can't be creative. You can't grow. In addition to that, as it relates to the idea of this post, if you follow bankroll management principles and never put up more than 5% of your bankroll at risk at one time AND you play 14 tables or more, you're going to be well restricted below the limits you could be playing if you just played 1 to 4 tables. Again, wouldn't it be better to play a couple of $200 NL tables than 16 $25 NL ones? You could play real poker, learn, and, if successful, make good money, too and position yourself to move up to $600 NL and so on.

I personally plan to grind my way up each level playing poker until I reach a level I can't beat. Then I'll drop down, but I will keep working to beat that level. I would hate the idea of getting stymied at any level IF there were games available to me a level up. Through the law of survival, it WILL happen to all of us eventually, unless you make it to the big game @ the Bellagio, but I'm eager to see where I max out.

I'm not really concerned with bonuses or buying 4 monitors to run 16 games @ once. I think I'd like to get to the point where I can run 4 games simultaneously without sacrificing note taking, reads, or the ability to play the game the way I want to play it.

This is all just some food for thought. Maybe it's been discussed before. I wonder what others think.

Originally Posted by Jason

I see two big drawbacks to excessive multi-tabling. For one, I want to play poker - get reads, play the player, play the situation, bluff, make a tough decision, put my opponent to a tough decision, and the like.

Multi-tabling is all about maximising $ earnt/hour. If you could play more tables, without drastically affecting your win rate then you'd be making more money. So by not playing more tables to simply "make tough decisions" or "bluff" more etc etc, then you're the person losing out on $$

Yes, these things get discussed often, but it's the Beginner's Circle where the readers change month to month. So no problem.

Bonus whoring IS profitable if you can win at stakes high enough to clear the bonus easily. If you just play your normal game w/ a normal number of tables at a new site, and get an extra $500 bucks for doing it, why not? I think you've hit on a mistake people can make, playing above the levels where they've been successful just to clear a bonus, or multitabling more than they can handle just to clear it. Those are dangers of bonus whoring. But for the winning 25nl+ players, bonus whoring can be a great way to increase their win rate. Just have to avoid the pitfalls you alluded to.

About multitabling, I agree with you and sil both. I think some folks in the poker world get some macho kick out of saying "I 20-table" and thus play more tables than they "should." How many tables should we play? We should play more tables until 1 of two thing is true:

1. Our win rate is dropping off.
2. Our learning rate is dropping off.

Sil covered #1, but also if we're playing so many tables we can't learn anything, can't plug leaks, can't find extra value and play TPTK better for each opponent we face, the extra tables will inhibit our ability to move up successfully. We'll get the bankroll we need without learning what we need to about the game to be a winning player at the next level.

I see a ton of posts about players who look to deposit anywhere from $500 to $750 at a site and grind out $25 NLHE games to get a $500 Bonus or so. Then they find another site and do it again, rinse, repeat, and there seems to be a whole culture behind doing that. However, wouldn't it be better to focus your energy on moving up limits instead of clearing bonuses?

Probably, yes.

Along those same lines, I hear about many players that love to multi-table anywhere up to 14 or 20 tables at once. I think the ability to multi-table is a huge benefit of Internet play compared to live play, however, I see two big drawbacks to excessive multi-tabling. For one, I want to play poker - get reads, play the player, play the situation, bluff, make a tough decision, put my opponent to a tough decision, and the like. When you multi-table more than 4 tables or so, for MOST players, you turn into a robot. You can't take effective notes. You can't get reads. You can't be creative. You can't grow.

The ranges for numbers of tables you're talking about depends heavily on what game it is and how many players there are, but your point is well-taken.

In addition to that, as it relates to the idea of this post, if you follow Bankroll Management principles and never put up more than 5% of your bankroll at risk at one time AND you play 14 tables or more, you're going to be well restricted below the limits you could be playing if you just played 1 to 4 tables.

This is incorrect. Putting money on a cash table doesn't mean it's at risk. This is different than if you were playing tournaments, because once you buy in for say $100, that entire $100 is at risk.

Originally Posted by Jason

wouldn't it be better to focus your energy on moving up limits instead of clearing bonuses?

The two are not mutually exclusive because you don't have to focus on clearing bonuses, you just move your growing roll every so often.

I bonus whored around when first building my roll and it helped accelerate the process of moving up sure, but the consequence was that I found myself moving up faster than my skill was so I ended up in very long frustrating break-even stretches at limits higher than I was truly ready for.

But whatever...bonuses from most sites are generally just rakeback anyway so I think you're stretching a bit trying to find something bad with them... *shrug*

Originally Posted by Robb

We should play more tables until 1 of two thing is true:
1. Our win rate is dropping off.
2. Our learning rate is dropping off.

I like these points and I can't help but think there are MANY players who have succumbed to one or both of these.

Originally Posted by sil693

Multi-tabling is all about maximising $ earnt/hour. If you could play more tables, without drastically affecting your win rate then you'd be making more money. So by not playing more tables to simply "make tough decisions" or "bluff" more etc etc, then you're the person losing out on $$

I guess I would argue for most players that excessive multi-tabling WILL drastically, negatively affect your win rate BECAUSE you can't do all those things that good poker players SHOULD want to do and those things SHOULD help them be more effective @ winning.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

This is incorrect. Putting money on a cash table doesn't mean it's at risk. This is different than if you were playing tournaments, because once you buy in for say $100, that entire $100 is at risk.

I agree your money is MORE @ risk in a tournament in a sense because it's not really yours anymore until you overcome the burden of cashing. However, as I understand it, if you play no limit, your stack, even in cash games, is still technically at risk. Sure, you can better control that risk, but it's still @ risk. In theory, you will be tempted to push or call your entire stack at a moments notice. When Chris Ferguson was grinding his way up @ the lowest micro limits and up, he would often purposefully leave cash tables if his stack size got too high. Specifically if his money in play was ever more than 5% of his entire bankroll, he would wait for the blinds to get to him and leave the table and then buy back in at a different table for less money. If you disagree with this, are you saying it's acceptable to buyin all your money as long as the stakes are acceptable? Or, what would be your guideline for putting your bankroll in play in NL @ one time? I personally agree with 5% rule and not only that, but I have an additional rule that I will only allow myself to LOSE 5% in one day and if that happens, then I'm done for the day. This helps prevent tilt and is just a good safeguard for protecting your bankroll.

Originally Posted by d0zer

The two are not mutually exclusive because you don't have to focus on clearing bonuses, you just move your growing roll every so often. ... But whatever...bonuses from most sites are generally just rakeback anyway so I think you're stretching a bit trying to find something bad with them... *shrug*

I don't think there is anything wrong with bonuses in and of themselves. I just see so many threads with players grinding out bonuses @ $25 NL and while that's probably good to do once, I think the NEXT move should be to move up limits, not find more sites to grind out more bonuses @ $25 NL. It seems like players undervalue the value in moving up IF you have the skill to do so.

Originally Posted by Jason

I just see so many threads with players grinding out bonuses @ $25 NL and while that's probably good to do once, I think the NEXT move should be to move up limits, not find more sites to grind out more bonuses @ $25 NL.

Well sure, move up if you're ready. No reason you can't move your whole roll to another site, move up in stakes AND clear another bonus

However, as I understand it, if you play no limit, your stack, even in cash games, is still technically at risk... If you disagree with this, are you saying it's acceptable to buyin all your money as long as the stakes are acceptable?

My original statement didn't really say what I meant on this issue. Instead, consider that if you play 100 hands of some limit you are bankrolled well for, it doesn't matter how much time is between the hands. If you played 100 hands over the course of an hour, that doesn't change your risk compared to if you played those same 100 hands over the course of ten minutes.

Originally Posted by Jason

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

This is incorrect. Putting money on a cash table doesn't mean it's at risk. This is different than if you were playing tournaments, because once you buy in for say $100, that entire $100 is at risk.

I agree your money is MORE @ risk in a tournament in a sense because it's not really yours anymore until you overcome the burden of cashing. However, as I understand it, if you play no limit, your stack, even in cash games, is still technically at risk. Sure, you can better control that risk, but it's still @ risk. In theory, you will be tempted to push or call your entire stack at a moments notice. When Chris Ferguson was grinding his way up @ the lowest micro limits and up, he would often purposefully leave cash tables if his stack size got too high. Specifically if his money in play was ever more than 5% of his entire bankroll, he would wait for the blinds to get to him and leave the table and then buy back in at a different table for less money. If you disagree with this, are you saying it's acceptable to buyin all your money as long as the stakes are acceptable? Or, what would be your guideline for putting your bankroll in play in NL @ one time? I personally agree with 5% rule and not only that, but I have an additional rule that I will only allow myself to LOSE 5% in one day and if that happens, then I'm done for the day. This helps prevent tilt and is just a good safeguard for protecting your bankroll.

Suppose you're playing 10 tables with $100 at each. The thinking goes that if you stack off 4 times in 5 minutes and start to tilt, you'll quit, rather than continue playing. If you're properly rolled (say 40 BI's) for that level, then you'll be able to handle a 4 BI downswing no problem. No one's saying to put all your money at risk, and most multitablers keep a few extra BI's around. Spoon's actual bankroll advice is on my operation thread (link in sig line below), 'cuz I follow it.

I find a lot of people who don't massively multi-table (12 tables +) have some misconceptions about the risk involved in multi-tabling.

If you've got a roll of 1200 and are playing 12 50NL tables, you've got 600 or half your bankroll in play which seems like risking half your bankroll, violating the 5% 'rule'. Sounds reasonable in theory.

In practice though, you rarely get involved in two or more hands simultaneously where your stack is likely to be at risk. Good hands just don't come around that often. In the event of a massive cooler where you lose a few buy-ins quick you've always got time to bail on your remaining tables to preserve the majority your roll.

The odds of feltable hands on all tables simultaneously (and then getting coolered on all of them) are just too low to even consider seriously.

Originally Posted by d0zer

The odds of feltable hands on all tables simultaneously (and then getting coolered on all of them) are just too low to even consider seriously.

How about the odds of feltable hands on ENOUGH of them to cause TILT, and a loss of a 1/3 of your bankroll before sanity returns?

Actually, I agree totally with Dozer, and the mathematics of variance back him up. But multitablers have more $$ at risk than others at the same level and need to be less tilt-prone the more tables and $$ they get in play, regardless of the % of their roll it is.

Basically, if you tilt hard and spew, don't multitable.

Multitabling is really the best cure for tilt and trains you to to eventually avoid it altogether.

Originally Posted by Parasurama

Multitabling is really the best cure for boredom, but trains you to pay more attention to HUD stats than play tendencies.

Maybe it's just me, but that's where I'd go with that.

I'm not saying you should only play one table, but you have to consider what is more important when playing the micros, playing as many tables as possible to maybe eek out a better $/hr, or play just a few tables while focusing on your strategy and opponents to actually get better at poker.

If you are already decent and maybe rebuilding a roll, more tables is probably the best option, but more likely those of us playing micros need to improve our game more than our hourly.

Originally Posted by Hawkfan79

More likely those of us playing micros need to improve our game more than our hourly.

^^^this

Long term win rate (say, 2 years or more) will be driven by the steepness of the learning curve we're able to sustain at the micros, not the max hourly. We may get to the new level but not be ready for it (like I did with 25nl about 6 times). At some point, we have to take the time to work on our game, and you can't do it playing 16 tables at once.

By the time I got good enough to beat 25nl, my game was almost instantly ready for 50nl, but I'm still struggling to beat it for a solid win rate and don't have any hopes for winning at 100nl without plugging some leaks. It's weird but most micro players (even winning ones) just don't seem to realize how much they suck, how many leaks they have to plug - I sure didn't. The levels are set up almost perfectly to train you to play well if you take the time to beat each one. I think a lot of multitablers below 100nl underestimate how quickly they could both get better and grow their bankroll by playing half as many tables. And I'll include myself in that critique. I fell prey to it lots last year, and it's a habit I have to keep kicking - I always want to push the limit with how many tables I'm playing rather than focusing on how well I'm playing on the tables that are already open. And it slows my upward mobility through the levels.

Originally Posted by Parasurama

Multitabling is really the best cure for tilt and trains you to to eventually avoid it altogether.

I agree with to a point. With multi-tabling if you have a bad beat on 1 of 4 tables ( I like quad tabling) You are more likly to brush it off as a bad beat and move on, because you have 3 other tables to think about. You can not ( nor do you have time to) dwell on the fact that you just lost a buy in.

The only issue I see people having with this, they do not notice they are tilt untill it is to late.
Knowing thy self and YOUR tilting tendencies is key. Whithout this you lack the ability to walk away.

It's interesting that this topic has been posted now because I just recently decided that once I get to $1500+ and have consistently beat 50nl on pokerstars i was going to ship the roll to FT and grind out their $600 first time deposit bonus playing 50nl. This way it will clear faster and I can ship the roll back to pokerstars ASAP. The only reason I want to do is this:

1.) To build my roll a lil quicker (who wouldn't? lol)
2.) Try out a new site software. (who knows if i like it enough i might just stick on FT)

What you have to remember is that #2 is the whole point for sites to have bonuses. To attract new customers. I was also considering doing the Ultimate Bet bonus later on, too. There's simply no reason to not try out a new site if they give you a bonus imo. Unless obviously you like the site you are on SO much that you refuse to try out another.

These are just my opinions, all subject to change at a moments notice lol. (<-- Hmm... new sig? lol)

Originally Posted by Robb

About multitabling, I agree with you and sil both. I think some folks in the poker world get some macho kick out of saying "I 20-table" and thus play more tables than they "should." How many tables should we play? We should play more tables until 1 of two thing is true:

1. Our win rate is dropping off.
2. Our learning rate is dropping off.

Sil covered #1, but also if we're playing so many tables we can't learn anything, can't plug leaks, can't find extra value and play TPTK better for each opponent we face, the extra tables will inhibit our ability to move up successfully. We'll get the bankroll we need without learning what we need to about the game to be a winning player at the next level.

I disagree completely. The majority of your learning should happen when you are not playing. When you are p[laying you should be focused on the task at hand, which is to make +EV decisions. You should be learning by posting hands, reading posted hands, session reviews, EV type calcs(ie testing exploitative startegy and counter strategy), inducing mistakes, optimal play, blind defense, hand ranges, etc. If you are doing these things while playing, you are doing yourself a disfavor.

As far as the multitabling goes, you should be trying to maximize your hourly rate, including your rakeback. Do not make your head explode trying to play more than you can. Do not play more tables to the extent that you are making mistakes and -EV plays.

Example:
4 Tabling a 3.0 winrate and 6 tabling a 2.0 winrate will yield the same $/HR. However you will increase your overall $/HR by increasing your rakeback.

Originally Posted by dranger7070

What you have to remember is that #2 is the whole point for sites to have bonuses. To attract new customers. I was also considering doing the Ultimate Bet bonus later on, too. There's simply no reason to not try out a new site if they give you a bonus imo. Unless obviously you like the site you are on SO much that you refuse to try out another.

These are just my opinions, all subject to change at a moments notice lol. (<-- Hmm... new sig? lol)

I strongly disagree. A bonus is not good enough of a reason to play on a site where cheating has been discovered and handled in the way that UB/AP handled it.

I would also recommend sticking to the well known and trusted sites over new sites unless you can handle the risk that comes with giving money to unknowns on the Internet, not to mention they are going to have less traffic, likely making it harder to clear bonuses.

I agree to avoid the lesser known sites, but UB is a relatively well known site nowadays with a DECENT (not GREAT) amount of traffic. I know that they were caught cheating in the past, but that shouldn't be the ONLY reason why you wouldn't play there. I have talked to a few players that play on that site, and they recommend it wholeheartedly.

I'm going to give it a shot probably sometime later on this year, or in the January of next year. I'll let you know if they are still "cheating," and whether or not it is a good site (imo) to play on.

I agree to avoid the lesser known sites, but UB is a relatively well known site nowadays with a DECENT (not GREAT) amount of traffic. I know that they were caught cheating in the past, but that shouldn't be the ONLY reason why you wouldn't play there. I have talked to a few players that play on that site, and they recommend it wholeheartedly.

I'm going to give it a shot probably sometime later on this year, or in the January of next year. I'll let you know if they are still "cheating," and whether or not it is a good site (imo) to play on.

I agree to avoid the lesser known sites, but UB is a relatively well known site nowadays with a DECENT (not GREAT) amount of traffic. I know that they were caught cheating in the past, but that shouldn't be the ONLY reason why you wouldn't play there. I have talked to a few players that play on that site, and they recommend it wholeheartedly.

I'm going to give it a shot probably sometime later on this year, or in the January of next year. I'll let you know if they are still "cheating," and whether or not it is a good site (imo) to play on.

Originally Posted by Hawkfan79

Originally Posted by Parasurama

Multitabling is really the best cure for boredom, but trains you to pay more attention to HUD stats than play tendencies.

Maybe it's just me, but that's where I'd go with that.

I'm not saying you should only play one table, but you have to consider what is more important when playing the micros, playing as many tables as possible to maybe eek out a better $/hr, or play just a few tables while focusing on your strategy and opponents to actually get better at poker.

If you are already decent and maybe rebuilding a roll, more tables is probably the best option, but more likely those of us playing micros need to improve our game more than our hourly.

This is true but it's irrelevant to my original point, which was independent of whether anyone should or shouldn't be multitabling.

I think when you multitable you play more hands, see the variance faster, take many more beats, have less incentive to "go after" someone that put a beat on you, and are forced to "get over it" quickly in order to continue playing profitably. Plus yes, it does cure boredom, and boredom is one of the ingredients of tilt.

With regards to the HUD, I don't know, I still don't use one even when 16-tabling lol.

Originally Posted by Jager

I disagree completely. The majority of your learning should happen when you are not playing. When you are p[laying you should be focused on the task at hand, which is to make +EV decisions. You should be learning by posting hands, reading posted hands, session reviews, EV type calcs(ie testing exploitative startegy and counter strategy), inducing mistakes, optimal play, blind defense, hand ranges, etc. If you are doing these things while playing, you are doing yourself a disfavor.

I agree that we should be doing a lot of study off the tables (much more than I do), but when you've come up with a new strategy/move/whatever in your study time, you'll still need to be able to focus to apply those concepts, especially at first when "it" is less natural to you.

It takes focus when learning to apply theory (what you figured out studying) to game-time decisions. This may not be true for simple adjustments, but, personally, I suspect most of my leaks are more than that.

Originally Posted by Jager

I disagree completely. The majority of your learning should happen when you are not playing.

I learn a ton while playing, especially at times I'm not involved in that many hands at once. I can take time in marginal spots (like a PFR w/ KTs I wouldn't normally make, but decide to try after seeing nits in both seats to my left), think through the things I've learned when NOT playing recently, try to establish a plan for the hand, check the detailed pop-up stats on the villains involved in the hand, etc. Having time for a few "deep thought hands" every hour is vital and insures you have enough time for actually thinking on every hand you decide to play. When I multitable 14+, I don't even SEE the conclusion of most hands, much less think about how I could have improved my line.

So you can disagree, it's fine. I was just writing about my personal experience.

So then you are playing less tables in order to be able to learn? This qualifies as learning while playing. Do you do this often? Is it more for the playing or the learning?

I do learn while I am playing, but the MAJORITY of learning I think will come from being away from the tables. I am speaking as someone who plays for the $$.

Originally Posted by dranger7070

I know that they were caught cheating in the past, but that shouldn't be the ONLY reason why you wouldn't play there.

This is a gross understatement of the truth. The fact that they have been caught not only once but twice, first at Absolute and then at UB with no remorse for the first time. And now we add ontop of that the very recent Phil Helmuth scandal and we are seeing a real problem that needs to be addressed by the players and not the KGC. There are better sites and better bonus's that clear faster than the UB never clearing bonus.

interesting thread. in regards to risking 5% of your BR.....

if you were to deposit 100 saying ok this is my BR.

i risk my $5 dollars today and lose it. the next day do i still consider my 5% to be $5 and yesterday was variance or do you only put $4.75 on the line?

Originally Posted by technician

interesting thread. in regards to risking 5% of your BR.....

if you were to deposit 100 saying ok this is my BR.

i risk my $5 dollars today and lose it. the next day do i still consider my 5% to be $5 and yesterday was variance or do you only put $4.75 on the line?

I don't think like that. Here's what I did at 10nl. I'd get to $625, and take a shot at 25nl, playing 4 - 8 tables (depending on 6max or FR). I had a stop-loss point where I'd drop back down, say, $400. The first time I dropped below $400, I would remain at 10nl until I had the $625.

As a note, I finally nailed it at 25nl when I waited for an $800 bankroll. I play an aggressive game and get weak-tight if I have too worry about the bankroll too much.

Anyway, I think most FTR folks think about bankroll management more in terms of total BI's (buy ins) rather than %. You need 20 - 25 BI's for the micros (25nl and lower) and 30+ BI's for the small stakes, imo. As I said, I'm nittier than that.

Originally Posted by technician

interesting thread. in regards to risking 5% of your BR.....

if you were to deposit 100 saying ok this is my BR.

i risk my $5 dollars today and lose it. the next day do i still consider my 5% to be $5 and yesterday was variance or do you only put $4.75 on the line?

Using the rules I follow, yes, I wouldn't risk any more than $4.75. Furthermore, if I bought into one table game for $2 and my stack was fortunate to grow to $5, I'd wait for the big blind to reach me and cash out. Because @ that point, the $5 represents 5.10% of my total $98 bankroll. I am putting too much at risk at once as I could easily decide to push or call an allin and lose.

Originally Posted by Robb

I learn a ton while playing, especially at times I'm not involved in that many hands at once. I can take time in marginal spots (like a PFR w/ KTs I wouldn't normally make, but decide to try after seeing nits in both seats to my left), think through the things I've learned when NOT playing recently, try to establish a plan for the hand, check the detailed pop-up stats on the villains involved in the hand, etc. Having time for a few "deep thought hands" every hour is vital and insures you have enough time for actually thinking on every hand you decide to play. When I multitable 14+, I don't even SEE the conclusion of most hands, much less think about how I could have improved my line.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Plain and simple, by playing too many players, you lose the ability to play poker and make observations and future decisions that will help you win. If you multi-task too much, you risk turning into a robot and play "ABC" or systematic poker. That's not to say the all multi-tabling is bad, but as we've alluded, there is a point where you not only stop winning as much but also learning as much.

Originally Posted by Jason

Using the rules I follow, yes, I wouldn't risk any more than $4.75. Furthermore, if I bought into one table game for $2 and my stack was fortunate to grow to $5, I'd wait for the big blind to reach me and cash out. Because @ that point, the $5 represents 5.10% of my total $98 bankroll. I am putting too much at risk at once as I could easily decide to push or call an allin and lose.

I completely disagree with you, but let me explain why. First, the issue of stack size is relevant to effective stack size, ie, you buy in $2NL, build to $5. If you are the chip leader, the only real money you have in play is equal to the second stack.

Second, I regularly play 6-8 tables, and can therefore have anywhere from 15-20% of my stack in play at any given moment. If it completely insane to think that I would loose all this on seperate AI plays. The very nature of the beast calls for your AI to be ++EV, so losing 8 of these in one session and therefore losing each of my buyins is incredibly unlikely. You should be winning waaay more than half of your AI plays, otherwise you have a horrible leak in your game.

First off regarding the bonuses.. OP, you seem to be overlooking the fact that an individual can move to another site to clear a bonus and still move up in stakes. I play 200nl on Pokerstars right now. $600 is still a relatively good amount of money.. I could easily ship my roll (or even a portion so I can still play while waiting on transferring money) over to FTP, and grind out the bonus there playing $100nl or $200nl. Once done, I will have another 3-6 buyins in which I could (and would!!!) ship back to Pokerstars. So to say that bonus whoring is affecting your ability to improve and get to higher stakes is just wrong imo.

Now regarding multitabling.. To most individuals, especially on this site, poker is about making money. We read, study, learn, play to make money. Hell, the site slogan is "Making money is fun". So, if you follow in this mantra then you are going to do what you have to do to increase your inflow of cash from poker. And multi-tabling is probably going to be your best bet.

The more tables you add, the more hands you get in. Unless playing more tables does drastically decrease your winrate (which in my experience everyone has a limit, but if you find the sweet spot then you shouldn't see a huge winrate difference), then you will obviously increase your $/hr by playing more tables.

This doesn't mean I'm advocating turning into a robot at all times, and doing nothing but grinding your ass off, and not improving (yeah I said it.. Fuck you SNE chasers ). But... You CAN have a mixture of both making money and improving. As Jager stated most of your learning/studying/epiphanies are going to occur away from the table. So do plenty of studying to get better. Then also just because you play 16 tables generally, doesn't mean you can't mix in "study sessions", where you grind only 4-6 tables to focus and make sure your lines are on point. Sessions that you can and SHOULD break down and study later. This allows for both improvement (on and off table), and allows you to increase your hourly, which will allow you to build that BR you need to move up in stakes.

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

You CAN have a mixture of both making money and improving.

Yeah, that's where I find myself at now - where I can either play for optimum $/hr which is ~$20, or I can play 2-4 tables and pay more attention to the game, and think deeper about it. At 8+ tables I can't do that.

But this is the BC. I don't think making money fast is really the main objective. You have a lot of time for plugging holes, learning to deal with variance, learning to handle tilt, work on hand reading, equity, pot odds, stealing, exploiting aggressive players, exploiting passive players, exploiting maniacs, go busto to experience first hand why you need BR management.

If you're trying to push your $/hr early on I think it will bite you in the ass later. You might move up to 50, even 100NL pretty fast, but you'll make it up in break even streches later on if you haven't gained a solid idea of what you're doing in the process.

Oskar I agree that the majority of the individuals at micros (and in BC) shouldn't be concerned with maximizing their $/hr. However, when you do have a solid game built, and you do want to increase your $/hr, you are gonna want to add more tables, or move up. And when you aren't rolled for higher stakes, your best option is going to be to add tables until you find your sweet spot.

Beginners should have more study sessions now while at the micros. Play 4 tables, then review the session. Post findings, questions, etc. Build a strong and consistent game. Move up (when properly rolled) to the stakes you feel produces a nice inflow of signficant cash, then you can worry about maximizing you $/hr, which would be adding more tables likely. I didn't start playing more than 6-8 tables until 50nl.