Printable View
It just seems that massive multi-tabling can't work past a certain level due to skill level of the other players. Trolls, stay away from this thread. I know you're going to post, I just want to make you feel small when you finally do post "YOU CAN'T MASSIVE MULTI-TABLE EVER!"
$5 says it's Spenda who does it first.
too broad a question since everyone is different. There are ppl that 24 table 5-10 and are big winners, there are people who 4 table 25/50 and are HUGE winners, all depends on what you want to be I guess.
well at a certain limit, say $100/$200 you can't get 24 tables on a regular basis (although it's not like I checked recently)
When you think you're struggling to manage the players, its probably time to play less tables ;)
there's many people who 24 table on stars and play 200nl/400nl/600nl/1000nl etc so obviously there is no specific limit where its impossible.
i don't think mass multitabling should begin at such an early stage in someones poker career though. it should be more like, learn to beat a higher level, and then start adding a bunch more tables when you still have an edge.
10nl isn't really the place to try and play 24 tables, learning is more important. you'll make alot more money 24 tabling 100nl, but you'll never learn how to do that if you didn't learn anything at lower levels.
you should definately post some more hands instead of asking so many questions like this.
I've wondered about this too. Obviously depending on skill a player could multi-table any stake. I think OP's question is where is the end of successful multi-tabling playing ABC auto-pilot poker? You can get away with it at 2NL and 5NL. I've heard one could have success at 10NL doing it. From everything I've read here, it seems as if the line is drawn at 50NL. That is where the multi-level thinking comes into play (i guess).
If a player could sustain a 6BB/100 winrate at 25NL and get in 10K hands a week, that's $300 a week. That's a nice part time job auto-piloting 10+ tables for ~3 hours a day.
Game I. When I 4-table 6max, I have time while playing to review recent HH's that were interesting spots, profile villains, and develop plans for exploiting specific players.
Game II. When I 10-table 6max, I sustain a better overall win rate (maybe 2x my 4-table rate), learn nothing, and play less than my A game.
The massive multitablers realize the difference between I and II, and when they're playing Game II they spend TONS of time away from the tables reviewing HH's, learning the game, and practicing. If not, your A game abilities deteriorate. With Game I, you can spend less time on studying and more time playing.
If you're gonna try multi-tabling, you BETTER commit several hours each week to studying and reviewing sessions or you'll get HORRIBLE really fast, imo. Generally, I've progressed more and faster when playing fewer tables.
I like the idea of splitting the day in half of playing at a higher limit with less tables, and then dropping down one limit to massive multi-table. That way you can still get a good amount of hands in, get better, and try and get a decent rakeback for the higher levels you play.
sort of like spend two hours on one, and then two hours on the other.
I have tried six-max though and I don't think I have the stomach for it whereas I have patience for full ring.
FR does lend itself to multitabling more so than 6max. Most players that get to 200nl have experience playing both successfully.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcadianRock
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robb
I played 16 tables of 25nl for 3 months and didn't spend the appropriate amount of time away from the tables studying. As a result my game deteriorated just as Robb describes above. I'm now 4-tabling which gives me enough time to pay attention to opponents' tendencies, take proper notes, and actually take time making important decisions/planning hands. I was winning money while 16-tabling (albeit with a greatly reduced win rate), but my game was falling apart in the process. Robb's advice is very good.
this sounds like a good alternative which will teach you multitabling skills while still maintaining an effective learning process.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcadianRock
The only stakes where it makes no sense whatsoever to play more than 4 tables is anything below 50NL imo.
The micros are for learning, not for 'omg I can make $6 an hour 24 tabling 5NL'
I made the mistake for several years of trying to build my roll through multitabling and grinding bonus's/ hands. I never learned what I needed to learn and am now struggling again with trying to relearn the game in certain areas.
You weriously need to think about what you want from poker, if it's 5BB/100 at $200NL playing 12 tables then go for it, but you won't get it playing 12 tables at $25NL for 3 months at <1bb/100 or grinding the micros. If your not beating $25NL for 20BB/100 you ain't gonna beat $200NL for shit.
What's wrong with doing both?
I think that working on your 4 table game taking notes, AND trying to increase your max tables per session as a winning player to both be equally important to a point.
Granted, I only beat 5 tables of 5nl for about 20 bb/100 right now, and I'm getting close to moving to 10, but there are days where I want to get my hands in, but I want to go on autopilot and see if I have the type of game where I can beat 12 tables.
Most days, I want to take the best notes I know how, and pick bad players to try to pick on.
I don't think there's EVER a point where multi-tabling fails, but there certainly is a point where it doesn't make sense. And that's when you win more playing one table, than you do playing multiple tables. There's also a point where multi-tabling makes no sense too. Thats where you make more money playing X tables than you do playing X+1 tables.
what's the point in making extra 10 cents an hour at NL5 when you could be learning how to play?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar4
your time you can dedicate to the game is limited, so why would you waste it auto-piloting?
Wow, is it possible to get 20bb/100 at 25NL for an above average player? I thought I was doing amazing at 5bb/100.
idk, I'm doing 12bb/100 at NL100 6max so it's probably possibleQuote:
Originally Posted by ArcadianRock
You guys are starting to confuse me. bb/100 or BB/100. bb=big blind, BB=big bet which is 2 big blinds. I can easily see someone of skill with a 20bb/100 winrate at 25NL. When jyms said 20BB/100 at 25NL I was like whoa! I don't know if he was being serious. Must be hella donkeys up there.
20BB at 25nl is clearly not sustainable over any significant sample, I doubt it could be even at 10nl.
5k hands max maybe, since I didn run > 20BB/100 at 5nl over such a sample. Even at 5nl I doubt this is sustainable over a significant sample size, though I imagine 10BB/100 is doable due to the games being so soft.
so you guys think then a 5BB winner at $10NL should be a 4BB winner at $25NL and a 3BB winner at $50NL? So then a 2BB winner at $100NL and 1BB winner at $200NL would be the natural progression? Do you really think $10NL is so tough that a $200NL winner would not hit 20bb/100
20bb is another way of saying 10ptbb/100 and a well educated player could certainly hit this target.
20BB as in BB= Big Bets equates to 40bb/100 - this I don't think is possiblly sustainable unless you're single table bumhunting and have superior skills.
If someone runs 10bb or 5ptbb or whatever at 10nl is certainly does not mean they will 'win a little bit less' at each stake upwards progressively. This logic is flawed because it doesn't take into consideration the amount of study time required to become at winning player at a higher level. So just because someone runs 5BB/100 at 10nl does not mean they will automatically run 3.5BB/100 at 25nl etc. They may be missing out entirely on important concepts that are necessary in order to beat that limit.
Also the fact that someone will be moving up before they've played enough hands to determine their true win rate at their current stake will leave them unsure on what their true win rate is. For example if you played 20k hands of 10nl and produced a very high win rate, then proceeded to move up to 25nl, this alone is NOT proof that you can beat 25nl, nor is it proof you can sustain that win rate over time at 10nl. Even 50k hands isn't really enough in most cases from what I've heard.
M2M, I think your making the same point as me. I am talking about not multitabling and getting a winrate up into the 20's. Grinding a shitload of tables to earn 5BB/100 and move up fast because of the amount of hands involved is a recipe for bouncing around the micro/small stakes for a long time. Grinding a 5BB winrate and playing a shit ton of hands will only help you get the BR ready for the move up, no the player in question.
and FWIW, we don't talk about bb vs BB anymore. there is no ptbb, HM is where it's at and this is no limit. It's big blinds
Yeah I think we're on the same page I just sort of explained it weird.
Your point about grinding out more tables for a lower win rate is so true and in fact, so important because it's obviously overlooked by alot of people starting out.
ArcadianRock: Attaining a larger bankroll, maybe 1-2 weeks earlier by multitabling than if you had played fewer tables and concentrated on making more high quality decisions and finding thinner value etc. will eventually set you back somewhere along the way. It's best to leave playing a high volume of tables for when playing in marginal situations becomes very natural to you so that you're not avoiding them and thus ditching out on thin value. I think this sounds like it may be the case in your move up, as I'm sort of experiencing the same thing.
Does everyone in this thread agree with this? I heard no announcement. Did I miss the memo? FWIW, HEM will show bb/100 or BB/100. Is ptbb/100 dead?Quote:
Originally Posted by jyms
when you mean ptBB, say ptBB don't say "BB is whatever I want it to mean"Quote:
Originally Posted by PlayToWin
I vote making up a new notation and then banning all other notations.
Who's with me.
$EEZpurr100 ?