"Reading" opponents vs. Multitabling

I usually play single table, as I'm fairly new and I like to try and and get a "feel" for the table and my opponents. This has its advantages becasue I can usually get a good read on various styles, even at 10NL, where the prevailing style is "I call", and I also get to learn through watching the play when I'm not involved. It also has disadvantges, because if I have a night of poor cards where I'm not playung much, it can get a bit boring, and I can sometimes be tempted to play a little looser than I should.

Recently, I've been tempted by mulittabling, figuring that if I get cold cards on a given table, I might have a better hand to play on another one. So last night I fired up a second table, and I found it REALLY difficult to get absorbed into both games as much as I would do when single-tabling. I mean, it was just like pushing buttons at times, without understanding the flavour of the game - and that's part of why I enjoy poker, y'know? I'm guessing that at lower limits that's not too much of a problem as reading weaker players isn't as important as reading good players, but I was curious as to how you guys think about this.

So please can we discuss this a little? How many tables do you usually play, and at what limit? Does your game change when playing higher numbers of tables (for example, I can imagine nut-camping at mulit-tables may be a proftitable way to play. I think it'd be a bit boring though). If you can't read the game to the extent that you would on a single table, do you just try and concentrate on a few specifics?

Any thoughts?

At 10NL I really don't see "reading" as ubercritical. The potential profits from opening up 3 tables and playing good cards at all of them outweigh the benefit of having a "feel" for players who

-play straightforward hang-on-and-pray poker
-aren't going to pick up on your own tendencies
-rotate in and out every few minutes

...

If you want to play just to make money, then you will have to consider multitabling as said above. One thing you may consider is poker office or pokertracker. PO might be a better option for now because you can get it for "free" by doing a bonus at many sites. Check out pokeroffice.com. Eventually you may want to buy PT depending on your own preference. There are many threads comparing them.

It will just help you get a feel for players when playing many tables. You also WILL adjust to the speed. It takes a while but after a while you will find one table to be incredibly boring.

Play as many tables as you can without paying attention. "Reads" are over-rated.

Tight reads = a little more money now and then.
8 tables = $$$$$$$$

sure reads are overrated when using tracking software. if you are not, and you still want to enjoy playing poker, then i would suggest slowly adding more tables as you become accustomed to it. once you are really comfortable playing two tables (it comes fairly quickly, with minimal loss of 'reads'), then experiment with 3. above that you would probably need the afforementioned tracking software, or at least i would.

I usually play 2-3 tables, after you play a few games at 2 tables it is easier (I play 2 tables now and read FTR)
focus on one table as a main table and pay less attention to the other one

If you add another table it wont take you long to get the hang of observing both tables and getting a feel for all the players.

I play 4 tables and I usually have a good idea of whats going on because (at most sites) I can fit all 4 tables on the screen with hardly any overlap so I can watch them all. Obviously you cant pay as much attention to each table as if you were only playing 1 table but if you practise you will eventually find you are remembering things even with 4 tables. HUDs help alot. Taking good notes helps even more.

I play 4 tables of 50NL. I have the monitor space for 6, but I haven't given it a shot yet. I use Pokertracker and PAHUD stats to help me make a lot of my close decisions but I also always have a pad of paper next to me for taking notes on specific players. I find multitabling is 1) more interesting because I have more decisions to make, and 2) good for my game because it's easier to play tight pre-flop when you know you won't have to wait very long to get a better hand than KQo UTG. If you're just playing for fun, do whatever's comfortable. If you want to make $ you're definitely going to have to multitable.

Originally Posted by Oscar

It also has disadvantges, because if I have a night of poor cards where I'm not playung much, it can get a bit boring, and I can sometimes be tempted to play a little looser than I should.

This was the primary reason I moved from 1 table to 2 and then to 3 (at 25NL). I found that moving to 2 tables still enabled me to read some of the other players (and I would make notes on them as play progressed). Moving to 3 required the use of a HUD because I could not get the read I needed in tight decisions.

Surprisingly, I think you will find, in time, that you still are able to follow each table fairly closely as you will seldom be involved in critical hands on all three. Just continue with your current tight playing style, fold quickly on the tables with lousy cards and watch one of the other tables.

Your BB/100 should increase. Mine did. Good luck.

Originally Posted by Irisheyes

"Reads" are over-rated.

Reads aren't over-rated.

Originally Posted by jackvance

Originally Posted by Irisheyes

"Reads" are over-rated.

Reads aren't over-rated.

Reads have a certain level of importance in any poker game, but at 10nl I'm pretty sure your number of hands per hour is much more important than reads.

Imagine that every hand you play is like the first hand you play at a table full of strangers. A guy raises. Is it the table nit or the table maniac? No clue. That's what it would be like to play with no reads..

How about...

multitable AND maintain reads?

when you are really new, i suggest you don't branch out yet - I really think its important to be able to BEAT a table before you just start adding more in for hands per hour - If you can't consistently beat 1 table, you won't do much better at 4 - If you are playing full ring you can Easily do 2 tables and still pay total attention - Once you get better go ahead and add tables - But I really must stress that just adding more tables doesn't guarantee higher wins - If you aren't winning at 1 table, adding tables is just going to stress you out and then you will have no idea what is going on - Until you can beat 1 or 2 tables consistently, stick to the basics - Learn what betting patterns mean - You will pick up all that stuff pretty fast (you'd be surprised really) but until you've got it all down, you should stick to a single table -

when i have played small stakes i have multitabled upto the max number you can eg like 10+ on party.

When i move to stakes approaching my skill level i tend to play less tables but often a few more hands for other reasons.
I only 4-6 table 200nl 6max at the moment or more often just 4 on the sites i frequent.

Originally Posted by jackvance

Imagine that every hand you play is like the first hand you play at a table full of strangers. A guy raises. Is it the table nit or the table maniac? No clue. That's what it would be like to play with no reads..

Which action is the most +EV vs an average player? I pick that option... over and over and over again. I do it maybe 12 times in the same time it takes you to realise that the guy is the same type of loose passive as 70% of the other guys on the table and that you should call.

Originally Posted by jackvance

Imagine that every hand you play is like the first hand you play at a table full of strangers. A guy raises. Is it the table nit or the table maniac? No clue. That's what it would be like to play with no reads..

If you can't keep reads that are this general when you're multitabling, then that's a problem to itself.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by jackvance

Imagine that every hand you play is like the first hand you play at a table full of strangers. A guy raises. Is it the table nit or the table maniac? No clue. That's what it would be like to play with no reads..

If you can't keep reads that are this general when you're multitabling, then that's a problem to itself.

Yea its really easy to pick up on general player types even when you are multitabling. If you use a HUD it becomes imposible to miss. If you cant do that then you arent ready to multitable yet. You need to work on being more observant first.

The kinds of things you miss out on are betting patterns.

e.g. Player A tends to cbet full pot when he misses the flop but only 2/3 pot when he hits or has an overpair

Player B on the other hand cbets full pot when he hits and 2/3 when he misses.

HUDs cant help you here and it takes a little longer to pick up on if you multitable since you might have missed it the first time.

This is why good notetaking is KEY. You dont have to remember all this stuff. You can just look it up when youre in a hand with someone

Originally Posted by Irisheyes

Originally Posted by jackvance

Imagine that every hand you play is like the first hand you play at a table full of strangers. A guy raises. Is it the table nit or the table maniac? No clue. That's what it would be like to play with no reads..

Which action is the most +EV vs an average player? I pick that option... over and over and over again. I do it maybe 12 times in the same time it takes you to realise that the guy is the same type of loose passive as 70% of the other guys on the table and that you should call.

Your reads have probably become fast and automatic as you see recurring patterns, so automatic that you might not even notice you are doing it anymore. That is why I said that reads aren't overrated. For someone to whom this doesn't come automatically it is very much crucial.

What I said about "imagine that every hand is like the first hand at a table" is not to be taken literally, but more like a thought experiment to understand how it would be for someone who is completely oblivious to people reads.

Originally Posted by jackvance

Originally Posted by Irisheyes

Originally Posted by jackvance

Imagine that every hand you play is like the first hand you play at a table full of strangers. A guy raises. Is it the table nit or the table maniac? No clue. That's what it would be like to play with no reads..

Which action is the most +EV vs an average player? I pick that option... over and over and over again. I do it maybe 12 times in the same time it takes you to realise that the guy is the same type of loose passive as 70% of the other guys on the table and that you should call.

Your reads have probably become fast and automatic as you see recurring patterns, so automatic that you might not even notice you are doing it anymore. That is why I said that reads aren't overrated. For someone to whom this doesn't come automatically it is very much crucial.

What I said about "imagine that every hand is like the first hand at a table" is not to be taken literally, but more like a thought experiment to understand how it would be for someone who is completely oblivious to people reads.

I now understand why your post count is so high.

Some of it has (pseudo-intellectual) content though.

Possibly Jack. I kinda tend to go

See a UTG limp - fish
See a pf minraise - fish
See a see a guy raise properly post flop - decent player
etc etc.

I think the only read you ever need is fish or decent. Learn the regular players at your stakes names. Everyone else is a fish.

If you enjoy concentrating on reads and playing fewer tables, I would suggest considering learning 6-max. Reads become much more important at 6-max and are easier to make because you are playing more hands against fewer opponents. You could 4-table FR for an hour, and have 50 hands on 36 players. Or you could 2-table 6-max and have 100 hands on 8 players. Both ways you are playing 200 hands/hr, but at 6-max, you get to make stonger reads because there are 1/4 as many players to read and you get twice as many hands to read them on(probably more like 4-5x as many hands because players will be involved with many more hands at a short table).