You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Options
How many tables, & why?
Tikay10
Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 160,128
in Poker Chat
Some folks seem to comfortably manage 8, 10, or even more poker tables at the same time.
The vast majority, however, are happy with one table.
How many do you play at the same time?
Why don't you play more, or less, tables?
Comments
For me personally, 4 is usually my limit (unless the fifth is the freeroll) as, any more than that and it's just not as easy to concentrate on everything that's happening on each table.
If I could fit more on the screen, I'd certainly play more.
Less than 3 or 4 tables & I lose my concentration, & my mind wanders, I start surfing the Forum & wiki. It reduces variance, too. The more tables we play, the less we will suffer from adverse - or positive - variance.
With the thing you mentioned about the more tables we play, the less variance we have, do you mean that specifically for you or more in general terms?
Of course, if we play worse (or better) with more tables, then variance is, to a degree, invalidated.
As a general rule though, the more tables we play, the less we are affected by variance - & that is both positive & negative variance.
The bigger the number, the less effect variance has.
Think of it as flipping a coin.
If we flip it 10 times, it can easily come down 6-4, 7-3 or even 8-2.
Flip it 1000 times, & the chances are it will be within a few % of 500-500.
Flip it 100,000 times, & it will be within half of a per cent of 50,000-50,000.
So those of us who "one table" suffer most from variance, by far. Note though that it can be either positive or negative.
I could possibly cope +4 if all the same format but will usually have a mix of 08 mtts, 08 dyms and maybe a holdem mtt together.
Being a bit younger would obv help as well....sigh.
6 is my preferred number, but can do 8 at a push. Without sounding too condescending, DYM's are much easier to multi table as you are also looking at the lobby for each game you play. When playing tournaments, however, you sometimes need to keep an eye on different lobbies (when the software manages to open them for you) and also other tables.
Yes, would agree that DYM's are ideal for multi-tabling, that also applies to cash games.
MTT's are potentially more difficult, as you can have MTT's at vastly different stages - early doors, blinds small, & sharp end, Final Tables. Keeping the right mindset for those 2 extremes must be difficult.
And yes, deffo "Responsible Gaming". I'd certainly not encourage folks to gamble more, instead I think they should reduce stakes & play more Tables. They would be better off in the long run, imo.
That's not the point of the thread though, I'm just curious why people play as they do.
The way I do it literally no one I know likes
I like to see the full screen and so have all the tables at the bottom of the screen as tabs and I either wait for the screen to open up when it’s my turn to act or click on it when it goes orange at the bottom of the screen
I can manage 11 tables like this. Any more and all the tables go into one tab and it’s a nightmare
There's some weird folks about. It is interesting how many of us see it so differently though.
That would drive me nuts.
Just shows, each to their own.
You running any better now?
I see what you're saying but I'd have thought it was a more "horses for courses" kinda thing. Obvz the more sample size we have, the less variance comes into play. With multi-tabling though, I'd say that is different. If someone plays their "optimum" game when they only have 1 table, if they have 5/6 tables at once they that could (would?) affect their long term win rate. Conversely, as you mentioned above, you can't play your best unless you have loads of tables open as you find it improves your concentration. To a certain degree, I think experience will be a factor in this - the longer you have been playing, the more likely you are to multi-table as you are able to make decisions based on muscle memory (for want of a better term), while newer players are less likely to be able to do that.
Incidentally, I've been playing like a bag of spanners recently, but when I had 6 tables open last night I played the best I have done in a while so you may be onto something there...(which is my cue to bleed money with 6 tables on the go tonight. ha!)
Ahh, that's a completely different thing.
Variance is completely unrelated to whether we play better or worse with more or less tables. Variance is ONLY the "luck" side of things.
I agree that some of us play better or worse with more or less tables. That's not variance though. However, no matter how good or bad we play, more tables reduces variance.
That's kinda my point, really. Obviously variance is the luck side of things but I'd split hairs a little and say more games in total reduces variance - not necessarily more tables at once.
If I play 6 or 8 I end up being unsure of what on earth just happened.
Yes, agreed.
Tried Pauls tab method and lasted about 1/2 hr before sacking it but I do now use a slightly modified version which allows me to go to about 7 (only really do this if I am playing solely one format ie cash or DYM)
I find best for me is 4 tables, I tile the first 2 then add others and reduce the size manually to sit 4 on screen then if I add more I use Pauls technique and have them in the tab.
I’m fairly sure it’s not optimal but it’s a a habit I got into years ago and us old folk don’t like change.
There is one thing where I think it can be beneficial. With only one table showing you focus purely on that decision.
If the tables are tiled then you can be distracted by a number of things, someone chatting to, getting aces, busting in a flip etc
Dyms are very easy to multi table. With Dyms there is very little skill and so the only decisions really are whether to go all in or fold.
Whereas with mtts you have so much more going on.
Can we fold and sneak into the cash? how low can we let our stack get before we shove? Etc