Some issues with multi-tabling

I actually had intended to post this in an existing thread in the HH section, but felt that it deserved it's own thread. I know a lot of FTTers are mutli-tablers so I hope this helps, and anyone who would like to add to this or comment on it, feel free. I may be coming back to add a few more things to this.


Renton,

I was actually going to start a thread about this, but since you asked, It's a perfect time to cover a few points.

My standard of late has been to play 8, yes. Before that I had never gone above 4, but I got the dell 30 incher so I can pretty much 9 table with no overlap.. it's a thing of beauty. The first night I did it, I dropped a good 3 buyins in an hour or so. The next day, I dropped about 5. But since then I've really gotten used to it. I've been running really well lately. Yesterday I started adding a single SnG to fill the screen (9).. played 3.. placed 1, 1, 2. So I'm gonna keep doing that and see how that goes. They were only the 10+1's, but I figure I read hoh1 and hoh2, might as well put some of that knowledge to use.

The stereotype for playing this many tables is that you turn into this uber-rock with no decision making ability.. everything becomes automatic. And that just isn't true. Granted, I do play very tight, perhaps a bit tighter then I should. I'm at a different computer right now, but over the last 25k hands or so I think I'm running at about 15/7 or so. If I nudge those numbers up just a bit, I think I'd be taking advantage of a bit more value, and maybe get a little bit more action.

When I was significantly newer to hold 'em, I used to just one-table the games on pacific. I started with only $5 I won from placing in a freeroll, and really worked that number up. It got to the point where I was beating the NL400 and NL600 short-handed games fairly well (albeit under-bankrolled). As one point I would say I was crushing those games.. and probably with vpip/pfr numbers of like 50/25 (complete guess, didn't have PT.. never even had heard of it at time). I was really a lagg, borderline maniac at times. It really helps me now to get into the mind of a good lagg (havn't seen many at my level) and also helps me when I want to make a move once in a while now. Of course now when I make moves I have such fold equity due to my image and the fact that the quality of play on stars is far, far superior to pacific.

For those interested, I only cashed out $1,000 from pacific, and lost several thousand when I went bust. BANKROLL MANAGEMENT IS KEY - FOLLOW IT AT ALL TIMES. And don't play at games you aren't ready for.

Playing so many tables just forces you do leave some value on the table whether you like it or not, for two reasons (probably more, but it's all I can think of). One, because you want to avoid tricky/marginal spots. You lack the reads that you ordinarily would have which can put you into some tough spots against thinking, agressive players. This is a reason why I probably shouldn't advertise how many tables I play. But it's kind of hard when I'm sitting at half the tables at my limit. Also, being forced into a situation where you have to spend a lot of time thinking about a marginal situation with imperfect information (due to subpar reads) just sucks. Take my word for it.

Hrrrm.. reads. First I want to talk about giving them as I kind of implied in the paragraph above. I think I talked about this earlier in the thread, but I seem to have this nasty habit of genuinely going into the tank when I have a tough decision. When there is still betting to take place, I think an aware opponent can really pinpoint a hand that I'm on. It's something I need to work on. I also usually use the auto-fold button preflop, but I also sometimes just don't use that with a trash hand, particularly in late position and certainly in the SB just so it's a bit harder to get a read on me. Any thoughts on this?

'Playing the player' does suffer a bit, but on the flip side, it often keeps you out of fancy play syndrome, so it's kind of a balancing act. I have issues with patience, and for me, playing many tables helps to keep me playing tight, solid poker, albeit with an occasional mixup play here and there. Pokertracker/Pokerace helps with the reads, and being able to see vpip/pfr numbers on the screen is invaluable. 15/3 nit raises UTG, folds to you on the button with AKo? 27o is better here. Another practical application is say, you raise EP with QQ, get called in 1 spot behind, flop comes Kxxr. That king is FAR scarier if the caller is say, 40vpip as opposed to 20vpip. Saying a depended on these programs would be a far-fetched lie however. They do help though, so I'll just leave it at that.

Getting reads. It's not as bad as you think. But it can certainly put you into some tough spots. The ability to watch a hand being played out that you aren't involved in is a wealth of information, and turns into a goldmine if there is a showdown (or somebody thinks they are cute and hits the 'show cards' button). The ones that raise their 26o, c-bet, take it down and show might think they are being tricky, but anybody with half a brain knows thats not how they play, and the fact that they are advertising for meta-game purposes gives an aware opponent an edge on them IMO.

Development as a player, in my opinion, does suffer a bit. Why do I continue to play so many tables if I think this is the case? I'm a guy that will voluntarily sit at a tough table, or a soft table with some good player(s), just to try to improve my game. Fnord, I hate to use you as an example, but I do this to you quite frequently. If this bothers you or you'd rather me not talk to you at the table or something, just let me know. Watching you in action has certainly improved my game, particularly watching you utilize position and agression and putting yourself into what I think are very marginal, but +EV situations against some of the donks at NL100.

I think what I lose in the ability to 'play the player' is at least somewhat counter-weighted by the fact that I have to make tons of reasonably good decisions over and over. Also, I think at times, I should cut down to maybe 4 tables for a period of time if for no other reason then to develop those 'playing the player' type skills. Maybe even lagg it up a bit.. when you are winning, it's sure as hell more fun that way.

For those still reading, I didn't have any intention of going this long with this post. Hope you enjoyed. I may come back and add a few things as I'm sure there's a few other points I'd like to adress.

This is a great post. Very interesting. Many of the same comments and observations i've had while mulitabling.
I noticed in another post, you put up a HH where you open limped AA and then pushed over the top of a raise. Is this a multi-table thing? I've found myself doing this on occasion because it's the easiest, though perhaps not most valuable (save when they call with QQ and AK) thing to do, so focus can be put to another table. AA is by far not the trickiest hand to play, IMO.
What are your thoughts on playing different games and levels on multiple tables? For example, yesterday I was playing two tables of PLO 8, one of PLO HI, and one of a NLHE MTT. It didn't seem to cause any problems, I did well, save for being overly excited and subsequently dissapointed when I was dealt great PLO 8 hands on the HI table and then realized it was in fact the HI table. Is this a disaster waiting to happen?
Anyhow, great post.

Wow, you wrote all that while 8-tabling? You > God.

Seriously tho that's a great post and I think it will be really helpful to a lot of people.

Originally Posted by SonOfAkira

This is a great post. Very interesting. Many of the same comments and observations i've had while mulitabling.
I noticed in another post, you put up a HH where you open limped AA and then pushed over the top of a raise. Is this a multi-table thing? I've found myself doing this on occasion because it's the easiest, though perhaps not most valuable (save when they call with QQ and AK) thing to do, so focus can be put to another table. AA is by far not the trickiest hand to play, IMO.
What are your thoughts on playing different games and levels on multiple tables? For example, yesterday I was playing two tables of PLO 8, one of PLO HI, and one of a NLHE MTT. It didn't seem to cause any problems, I did well, save for being overly excited and subsequently dissapointed when I was dealt great PLO 8 hands on the HI table and then realized it was in fact the HI table. Is this a disaster waiting to happen?
Anyhow, great post.

The AA hand I posted was not standard at all for me. 99% of the time I'm opening AA there for 4x. Quite honestly, I don't know what to say about playing different games/stakes at once. If you can do it without making mistakes, I don't see a problem with it. If you are getting the PLO and PLO8 tables mixed up, that's obviously a huge problem. Ditto if you get the stakes mixed up. I've tried keeping it simple by just playing all NLHE, all at the same stakes.

Wow, you wrote all that while 8-tabling? You > God.

hehe, no. I woke up and saw renton's post in one of the HH threads so I just responded and kept typing.

let me second Lukie on the helpfulness of PokerAce HUD, in conjuction with poker tracker. It is tremendously helpful. It is particularly helpful when you play the same stakes at the same site for a while, because then table selection's a cinch.

I dont think playing different games / stakes is a probelm for multitablers. At the site I play at, for instance, during off hours its hard to get five 400NL ring tables going at once, so frequently I open up some 200NL or 100PLO tables to fill the difference. Honestly, I think playing PLO and HE at the same time keeps me more focused, and less likely to donk away chips. Save for a few times that I forget which stakes I'm at and raise to $20 preflop at 200NL, getting stakes mixed up rarely happens, because betting is all pot-proportional anyway after the flop, rather than stakes - proportional.

I went through a phase a while back where my favorite move with AA, KK from UTG or UTG + 1 was to limp push. (I remember losing a 200xbb limp push at 200NL AA vs K3o once ) I eventually decided howecer, that even though AA and KK are very hard to play OOP, that its still alot more profitable to just open them for a standard raise PF and just play poker.

Great post man,

Bankroll mangement is key, I have ran many rolls up playing out of my bankroll but I have lost many aswell (as you know all to well) .

Please don't post the HH it makes me cry.

Originally Posted by Muxy

Great post man,

Bankroll mangement is key, I have ran many rolls up playing out of my bankroll but I have lost many aswell (as you know all to well) .

Please don't post the HH it makes me cry.

thanks, and yes, br management is very key.

The hand in question went something like this...

somebody raised pf, somebody reraised pf. somebody bet the flop, other person pushed the flop. when the dust settled I had AA and he had KK. It was played perfectly on both ends, and if the hands were switched, he would have stacked me. The point is basically.. variance is a bitch. Play within your bankroll. I've also gone bust by playing out of my br.. maybe someday I'll share the story.

edit:

When I was significantly newer to hold 'em, I used to just one-table the games on Pacific. I started with only $5 I won from placing in a Freeroll, and really worked that number up. It got to the point where I was beating the NL400 and NL600 short-handed games fairly well (albeit under-bankrolled). As one point I would say I was crushing those games.. and probably with vpip/pfr numbers of like 50/25 (complete guess, didn't have PT.. never even had heard of it at time). I was really a lagg, borderline maniac at times. It really helps me now to get into the mind of a good lagg (havn't seen many at my level) and also helps me when I want to make a move once in a while now. Of course now when I make moves I have such fold equity due to my image and the fact that the quality of play on stars is far, far superior to Pacific.

For those interested, I only cashed out $1,000 from Pacific, and lost several thousand when I went bust. BANKROLL MANAGEMENT IS KEY - FOLLOW IT AT ALL TIMES. And don't play at games you aren't ready for.

nevermind.

I also have been playing 9 tables, since Party made adjustable table sizes and I can have them with no overlap.

I agree with everything you said. You get in so many hands against the bad players. HUD can help you avoid good players. I rely on HUD for my reads. I hate when a new player is at the table and I don' thave many hands on him. A 25/0/0 player after 25 hands isn't really telling me anything.

I vary my cbet based on player stats. For instance, if I know someone is just set-hunting, I just pot it no matter what. He's not calling without his set, and if he calls, I know what he has and there's no need to outplay him.

I still manage to play quite a lot of small pots, and I usually do well in them. My reads have been spot on lately.

I almost posted a LC hand last night where my set of nines lost to a set of aces. I knew he had aces, though...he put in a bigger-than-usual raise from EP, and then a little teenie-weenie bet on the flop. Stupidly I got all the money in...I could have at least played a small pot.

Anyway, I think multi-tabling is a wonderful thing, although I might not be learning the skills I need to beat the higher limits, if I can ever get there. I always do well for a while, then go on this nasty set under set, KK v AA, flush under flush, and your normal suckouts streak, and lose a bunch of money and shake my confidence. It's hard to keep telling yourself "you're supposed to go broke there."

Now, Lukie, a question: What should BR requirements be for a nine-tabler?

Generally you hear two lines of thought on BR managment issues: buy-in rule or % risked rule.

If you need 20 buy-ins, obviously that doesn't matter multi-tabling...you're just getting in more hands.

If you can only risk 5% of your roll at any given time, I'm messing up bad. I was running hot the other night and ended up with 65% of my 'roll on the table. (Obviously I follow the buy-in rule)

I also have been playing 9 tables, since Party made adjustable table sizes and I can have them with no overlap.

Ugh. Party. Everytime I play on there I time out like every other hand. For some reason, I just never know when it's my turn. It gets to the point where I feel bad for the other players at the table. I think it might have something to do with the fact that it beeps once when it's your turn on another table, but doesn't beep again when you finish action on your current table, like Stars. Have you had any problems with what I'm talking about? Also, I havn't played any party recently, how do you do the adjustable table sizes?

I agree with everything you said. You get in so many hands against the bad players. HUD can help you avoid good players. I rely on HUD for my reads. I hate when a new player is at the table and I don' thave many hands on him. A 25/0/0 player after 25 hands isn't really telling me anything.

I vary my cbet based on player stats. For instance, if I know someone is just set-hunting, I just pot it no matter what. He's not calling without his set, and if he calls, I know what he has and there's no need to outplay him.

agree 100%, but I don't think I rely on PAHU quite this much. Often times they are the only reads you are going to have though.

Anyway, I think multi-tabling is a wonderful thing, although I might not be learning the skills I need to beat the higher limits, if I can ever get there. I always do well for a while, then go on this nasty set under set, KK v AA, flush under flush, and your normal suckouts streak, and lose a bunch of money and shake my confidence. It's hard to keep telling yourself "you're supposed to go broke there."

I feel you man, but when you are getting in upwards of 500 hands/hour, these things happen. It seems like you remember when you are getting the worst of it much moreso then when you are getting the best of it though, that's for sure. And the way I look at it, I play better cards then most of my opponents, so I SHOULD be getting the best of it more.....

Now, Lukie, a question: What should BR requirements be for a nine-tabler?

I don't claim to be an expert on this, but it depends on a lot on your skill level, skill level of the game your playing at, general agression level of the game, whether or not that br is replenishable, how small of an edge you want to push (ie passing up hardly +EV situations in favor of much smaller variance), how good you are at 9-tabling, winrate (kinda goes along with how much of an edge you want to push), and a bunch of other things I'm sure that I couldn't think of off the top of my head.

Generally you hear two lines of thought on BR managment issues: buy-in rule or % risked rule.

If you need 20 buy-ins, obviously that doesn't matter multi-tabling...you're just getting in more hands.

If you can only risk 5% of your roll at any given time, I'm messing up bad. I was running hot the other night and ended up with 65% of my 'roll on the table. (Obviously I follow the buy-in rule)

I don't think % risked rule really applies to multi-tablers. I mean. Say I'm playing 8 tables and I can only risk 5% of my roll (we'll just ignore any winnings for now). Thats 160 buyins. Maybe if your entire livelihood depended on your br, but for my purposes, that's just crazy.

I do think multi-tablers should have a larger br for a variety of reasons, and I think at the middleish stakes if you are a solid player, 30ish would be pretty ideal. I moved up to NL200 with around 20 buyins, so take it for what it's worth.

For those interested (I know it's a meaningless sample size), I started off slow, but after 6.2k hands of NL200 I'm running at 3.18ptbb/100 in the green all while playing 8.

Lukie, good post. But I think a new monitor would be more helpful to me at this point than the advice given in your thread.

Oh yeah, and for BR requirements, this is what I think. Four a quad-tabler, I would recommend 30-40 buyins, if you're playing 100NL and up. For 8-tables, I would probably say 50-60 buyins would be appropriate, but I have never 8-tabled before so take this fwiw.

Originally Posted by bdawg56kg

Lukie, good post. But I think a new monitor would be more helpful to me at this point than the advice given in your thread.

Oh yeah, and for BR requirements, this is what I think. Four a quad-tabler, I would recommend 30-40 buyins, if you're playing 100NL and up. For 8-tables, I would probably say 50-60 buyins would be appropriate, but I have never 8-tabled before so take this fwiw.

Lol, I've been telling you to get a new monitor. You know, using FPP to buy the dell 24 incher through 'stars might be something that would work out well for you.

I'm not going to disagree with your br suggestions. I probably should have said 30 at the very minimum...

Yeah bankroll is my better now playing 10+1 on party have around 700. Soon i will be able to stack you. And take me 100 back.

Originally Posted by Lukie

Have you had any problems with what I'm talking about? Also, I havn't played any party recently, how do you do the adjustable table sizes?

I don't have the problem. I'm acutely aware of the action buttons when they pop-up. I've never played stars, so I'm not used to the repeat beep I guess. I don't generally slow down the game, although sometimes I become really focused on a hand and run out of time on another table. But like once every few hours.

As for the tables sizes, you adjust them like any normal window in any other program. They have the arrow thing in the bottom corner. They also have a button right on the table now that'll auto-size and auto-arrange them on your monitor, pretty sweet.

Originally Posted by bdawg56kg

Oh yeah, and for BR requirements, this is what I think. Four a quad-tabler, I would recommend 30-40 buyins, if you're playing 100NL and up. For 8-tables, I would probably say 50-60 buyins would be appropriate, but I have never 8-tabled before so take this fwiw.

I don't think this is valid advice, personally. I posed the question, but I already had my opinion on the matter. I don't really feel it's more important for multi-tablers to have a larger bankroll than anyone else. I personally like to have between 30 and 40 buy-ins, but I feel like I'm a bankroll baby. I'd think if anything, the variance multi-tabling is lower day by day.

Actually, I've always kind of thought the requirement system was kind of silly. You're supposed to have 20 buy-ins to play a limit...so if you lose your first buy-in, you have to drop back a limit. Now you have 38 buy ins for that limit. But what was the point of having 20 at the next limit? You could have moved up with 22 buy-ins at the previous limit, lost your first one, and moved back with 20 for the original limit.

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the idea behind protecting yourself and your bankroll, and I never play out of my bankroll (anymore). I also know that I personally play better when I'm not worried about my bankroll. That idea of 20 buy-ins just never makes sense to me, other than just a goal/landmark.

I just see the 20 buyins as a goal to move up. Ive just moved to 25NL from 10 NL. I have 19 buyins. Moved up at 20 and ive taken some horrific beats since but I feel im playing well (and profitably) so im sticking at it. If I fall below $350 or so Ill drop back down to 10NL, and then I wont move back up until $500 again.
Those 20 buyins allow you to lose a few before you move down, and then still have a good sized bankroll for the limit you have to drop down to if the worst happens.

I don't generally slow down the game, although sometimes I become really focused on a hand and run out of time on another table. But like once every few hours.

This happens once in a while to me too. And quite often I find it's when I'm facing a large river bet.

And then the inevitable 'zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz' comes in the chat from the table jackass...

(i do it too)

rofl, I love the zzzzzzzz guys.

How do you shrink the size of the tables? I know that if you go to desktop options and appearance r something like that, you can alter the pixels ie. 1080x900 to 540x360 or something like that. But this never seemed to give me the desired effect. Is it simply a matter of a large monitor and lowering the pixels to their minimum?

yep pretty much

I don't have a super mackdaddy monitor like Lukie so I just play on party where you can scale down the tables to fit.

Hehe, bank- those tables are not shrunk. The tables are still running at 800x600 each. It's just that the monitor puts out 2560x1600. Beautiful eh?

So... yeah... I used to 4-table on this bad boy.

Originally Posted by Lukie

So... yeah... I used to 4-table on this bad boy.

LOL. Looks like a familiar sight. :P

Hmmm I was considering getting a 20.1 incher but now it seems small compared to that dell 30 incher.

ya i've got a 19 and it ain't so great. I think I am going to make it my Auxiliary and eventually get a 30 like lukie's

Hey Lukie what kind of winrate did you sustain when you were 8 tabling 100nl?

damn lukie ur moniter is pimp bro. how much was that badboy? i might get one with my winnings haha