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)