My first post!

I've been reading this forum for weeks, and it's absolutely terrific! I've learned loads

I'm quite new to poker (played 8k hands), but I've been studying hard and learned some basics. I'm sure this is a much debated topic, but I wasn't able to find anything through the search:

Is playing one table far superior to multi-tabling when it comes to improving your game? Isn't getting better at reads and betting-patterns easier when playing fewer tables? Also, you do get experience faster with more hands per hour when multi-tabling, but how much is this experience worth when your attention is split between all tables?

I play 4 tables now (can't play 5 comfortably) and I'm worried that it hinders my progress since I can't take much time to think when in a difficult spot.


Thanks in advance!

4 tables should be fine for thinking about hard spots and getting reads. One tabling is pretty bad to do long-term imo because you're going to be stuck at the same stake for so long because your hourly will be terribad. just play the amount of tables that you feel comfortable with

Good point. In addition, one-tabling tends to become boring and my vpip will double up. Of course, that's a matter of discipline

If you're actually focusing on improving your reading, one table is definitely better. You can and should watch every hand, and try to correlate each opponent's actions into patterns. For example, what range does the player in seat 1 limp in EP? How about in MP and LP? What about the player in seat 4 who sometimes opens for 2.5X and other times for 3X. Is this based on position or does it indicate hand strength? There are lots more questions like this that, unless you're some kind of prodigy, you'll train yourself to do better and faster by actually trying to figure them out than by waiting to improve by osmosis while playing lots more hands. And of course, it's not a complete either/or situation. You can do both, just not at the same time.

Originally Posted by Arjonius

If you're actually focusing on improving your reading, one table is definitely better.

Eh maybe. If you're 4-tabling you can still see every showdown, etc.

Thanks for the advice Arjonius, it does make sense. I'm gonna mix up one-table/reads sessions with multi-tabling sessions from now on

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Eh maybe. If you're 4-tabling you can still see every showdown, etc.

Yes I guess, but my attention span isn't there just yet. I don't think I can prosess who played what from where, and how they played it at 4 tables simultaneously. But trying to do so is probably the best way to get my attention span there, and from there improve my hand reading at a faster rate than by one-tabling?

Sound logic?

I suggest starting with 2 tables of 6-max or 4 tables of full ring and going from there. If you're playing full ring you will be seeing a slightly higher hands/hour with this, but you're also playing a much smaller % of hands so it evens out.