How many tables at a time do u play at?

You want a headache? Try 5 tabling PLO. That is a world unto itself. I don't know if you can go real high playing PLO. And I wouldn't attempt to go more than 3 with PLO H/L

4 tables... usually 2 cash games and 2 single table sngs at same time

4 at plo is HARD

bubbasbestbabe said:

You want a headache? Try 5 tabling PLO. That is a world unto itself. I don't know if you can go real high playing PLO. And I wouldn't attempt to go more than 3 with PLO H/L

Click to expand...

The problem for me with PLO is that I can't read the hand strength at a glance like I can with Holdem. Maybe it comes with time. If the tables are playing slowly I can play 2, but that's it.

With a low BR I tried multi-tabling $1 SnG's and just found that it was better to violate the 2% rule and play one $2 table. Still small patato's and with more experience I can see the valve of multi tables, but right now with stats of only 58 games, adv buy $2 and net profit $45. I think I should slowly build now and expand later. also Have not invested in any tracking software at this point so I rely more on studing the players.

BelgoSuisse said:

What I'm saying mostly is that if your end goal is to play high stakes

Click to expand...

Well first off my end goal is to make the most money I can. If I can learn to 24-table FR 200nl and that's the most profitable I'll do it. If I can beat the $200/$400 HUNL games 1-tabling for more, I'll do that. I am assuming though that if I can continue to improve and get better that the limits that will be the most profitable are higher than 200nl though. I really don't care if I can play nosebleeds or even any higher than I am now. I want to work as hard as I can and get as far as my ability will let me, and use that to make the most profit.

BelgoSuisse said:

1. you need to learn 6max because most of higher stakes online poker is 6max
2. you need to focus on BB/100 more than on volume

Click to expand...

I actually didn't realize #1 was the case but I just took a look at the Pokerstars tables. There are right now 3 1knl FR tables going and 16 1knl 6max tables going.

#2 I agree, but I don't believe the 2 contradict each other, especially when I can go back and look at hands for a long time and with tools/help from people here one at a time. Sure there's a point, but I don't believe I'm playing enough to hurt my winrate much. I've done some outside studying of most of the regs so I've got a decent idea of how most of them play beyond the simple VP$IP/PFR and other stats.

BelgoSuisse said:

but i also think that 6max by nature has the potential to be more profitable than FR. There's a lot more of marginal situations where good players have an edge over lesser ones.

Click to expand...

Makes sense, wider ranges means tougher decisions.

BelgoSuisse said:

To some extent, you have the same effect with FR and 6max. FR is somewhat simpler. Oversimplifying, it's mostly TAGness and nut peddling.

Click to expand...

I know you said you're oversimplifying, but I totally disagree with this statement. Just in the games I'm playing there is a significant amount of light 3 and 4-betting, bluff shoves, and other standard poker moves. Now to some extent the way FR becomes more interesting is basically when it turns into 6max and you have a CO or button open, but I just wanted to emphasize that FR is definitely not just TAG nut-peddling.

BelgoSuisse said:

6max is more complex than that. Depends more on players and less on cards. And more complex means a better edge for the best players, including you.

It's true that rake is a bit higher at 6max, but that's irrelevant for the higher stakes, because rake is capped, and therefore it is just a tiny dent in a good high stakes player's win rate. What matters most is to play a game that is difficult enough for excellent players to have an edge over merely good ones.

Click to expand...

This does make a good bit of sense.

I guess I'll continue to give 6max a try. Definitely more aggro, but from what I've played of 50nl 6max I've discovered 2 things:

1. I am profitable in the game
2. I still have a long ways to go and a hell of a lot of leaks to close before I can consider myself even a decent player.

First - really enjoying the discussion between Zach and Belgo. Two of the top tier poker thinkers here at CC IMO.

Second - I 5 tables with ease and do stuff like surf the web without hassle. I can 6 table but for some reason haven't had many great profitable sessions ... YET. In my heart of hearts I want to be 8-tabling but I am not close ... just adding 1 table at a time.

Third - i'll post in its own thread, totally off topic ....

i tend to play about 3 or 4 tables because it allows me to be more responsible with my chips. if i only play at one table i tend to be irresponsible. so my advice to people who get bored easily is to play more than one table so this way you are more likely to fold and expect more action at another table rather than chasing or calling something you usually wont win. i find that i win aot more when i play with that strategy and i lose alot when i play one table. it also helps during tournaments to be patient and wait for your time to call

I don't play cash games and playing 4 small buyin tourney/SNG's is the max for me. When playing a bigger buyin than normal, I'll make the table as big as possible and grab a book or newspaper to keep my self from getting bored or impatient....keeps from chasing flushes and straights

bubbasbestbabe said:

You want a headache? Try 5 tabling PLO. That is a world unto itself. I don't know if you can go real high playing PLO. And I wouldn't attempt to go more than 3 with PLO H/L

Click to expand...

I know what your talking about. the only time i had problems playing 6 tables was trying to play holdem, stud, razz, omaha hi, omaha hi-lo, and draw. that was a little to much on the brain.

early on in tourney's I play 1,2 or 3 ring games but as the blinds go up I drop out

30 to 50 tables it can not be profitable does he use bots? - breakeven at best, thought the idea is to win?

i can only play 4-6 at a time any more and it starts to get crazy

I believe those who play more of 30 tables simultaneously, they must be professionals of the poker. I scarcely can play three tables simultaneously. In addition they help themselves with programs as the pokertracker to have mas information of his rivals.

I only play 2-4 tables at a time.
When you go higher, you are really just becoming a
Human Poker Bot, and I don't find that much fun at all.
It's WAY too much like work.

shiver said:

early on in tourney's I play 1,2 or 3 ring games but as the blinds go up I drop out

Click to expand...

Sorry I don't understand this statement?

shiver said:

30 to 50 tables it can not be profitable does he use bots? - breakeven at best, thought the idea is to win?

Click to expand...

Breakeven + rakeback = profits

I PLAY ABOUT 5 TO 6 GAMES AND THATS ALL I CAN HANDLE

I think the ppl who play more than 10 tables at a time are mostly playing tight and sitting out and when they have a hand they just push agressively i have seen this on poker stars in the low limit ring games. they just sit at many tables and gobble the fish when they have the bait. I dont like these players they do not contribute . or for that matter even play the game. They are just there to double their money so that when they have a bad beat on one table it does not matter. some strategy. for me its no pleasure playing poker this way.

Number of Tables

I can and will play 4 freerolls or 2 ring games at a time. I agree with another player if I get to a final table or just about on the bubble then I will let some of the tables go. More than 6 tables is just silly. No way to watch and study what is going on.:smile:

I try to only play 1 at a time, sometimes I end up in two but only because the 1st ran longer than I expected. Anyone who had read more than 2 of my threads knows how I feel about players notes and I dont see how you can take notes on 5, 10, or maore tables at a time

I personally think that more than 3 tables will effect your play in the bad way, because it`s not only the calls and raises at each table, but also to watch and see how your opponents are playing at each table .
Too many tables will surely means that you make more bad calls or folds.
Me myself don`t play more than 2 tables

The most Iv'e played at once is 8 tables and that is hard you have no time to figure out the players your playing with and the tables pop-up and sometimes you call hands you don't even want to call and that affects the way you play completely...

the most I have ever played at 1 time was 8 and it got pretty tricky to me trying to juggle them I cant imagine how anyone could play so many at once. Also, I agree too that I think it hurts your quality of play

4 to 6...and that's enough for me ! more than that i lose track on things and start doing big mistakes and losing allot more than winning!

Double-A said:

I've been messing around with 12 tables of NLHE on Pokerstars. Under Options choose Cascade Tables. Set your tables to pop up when it's your turn. I also choose Auto-Rebuy. That's the only site I've experimented with for multi-tabling.

I don't notice beats. Playing twelve tables I seldom see the outcome of a hand. I usually can't tell if I'm up or down until my session is over.

I just play ABC poker and focus on flopping sets. I don't bluff and when in doubt I just lay down.

Click to expand...

iv been wanting to get to 12 tables...im at 4 FR still tho lol. but how does it work out for you? im always curious to know where i stand. i think im gunna try this out tho...it sounds like fun!