My first post!

[Arjonius]

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.

[spoonitnow]

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.

[Kakashi333]

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

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?