I usually prefer playing one table at a time. It helps me stay focused, especially in tournaments where every decision can be important. Playing too many tables at once can make me rush decisions and lose concentration. It also means you inevitably miss information and patterns about your opponents when you're not focused on their table, which can reduce your chances of making the right decision when you face them.
I agree that for quality play - having 1 and/or under 4 tables opened at the same time helps a lot... at least, I'm also a player that nowadays prefers to focus on fewer tables and make as little mistakes/bad plays as possible, while also not relying on just stats collected by HUDs and miss on important info that can help in important spots... so, I also recommend reducing the number of tables for the players that struggle with making the right decisions and/or the players that believe they miss on information or are forced to make a quick decision due to the fact that too many tables are opened...
With 1 table you actually track who’s tilting, who over-folds to turn bets, who 3-bets too wide.
You can exploit mistakes instead of just clicking buttons. That’s where the real money is.
You can exploit mistakes instead of just clicking buttons. That’s where the real money is.
Good morning everyone! This is very common for players who are just starting out in the poker world. The more you study, the more automatic your decisions become and you begin to realize that playing at several tables at the same time can be much more profitable.
It can happen that you play with a lot of concentration at a single table, on an MTT, and even after hours of intense play, your AA loses to a smaller pair, such as 66, 77, 88, etc. You spent two hours playing with full focus and suddenly you lose a hand and have to start all over again.
When you play at multiple tables, you just need to perform well on an MTT to make a profit. Many poker teams that study profitability establish a minimum number of MTTs that each player must play. When I was part of a poker team, the minimum was 600 MTTs, and that was precisely the period in which I made the most profit. The problem was that I had to pass on 60% of everything I earned to the team.
That is why, in my opinion, playing at several tables at the same time is much more profitable. You reduce the emotional impact of losing a specific hand or tournament and increase your chances of ending the period with a profit.
It can happen that you play with a lot of concentration at a single table, on an MTT, and even after hours of intense play, your AA loses to a smaller pair, such as 66, 77, 88, etc. You spent two hours playing with full focus and suddenly you lose a hand and have to start all over again.
When you play at multiple tables, you just need to perform well on an MTT to make a profit. Many poker teams that study profitability establish a minimum number of MTTs that each player must play. When I was part of a poker team, the minimum was 600 MTTs, and that was precisely the period in which I made the most profit. The problem was that I had to pass on 60% of everything I earned to the team.
That is why, in my opinion, playing at several tables at the same time is much more profitable. You reduce the emotional impact of losing a specific hand or tournament and increase your chances of ending the period with a profit.
To be honest, I think most players should only play one table or two, especially when players are just learning the game or trying to improve their game. You can't see everything. You're gonna miss things. And that's understandable. But it always amazed me when somebody would play multiple games and then be like, oh, I folded aces on a seven, three, two flop, and can't figure out why. Well, you saw somebody bet big and you just folded because who knows? All right, maybe that's a bad example, but you get the point. I think playing multiple tables is fine to a certain degree. But yeah, I wouldn't suggest people playing too many tables. I tend to play mostly one at a time. I do play four at many times, but I'd rather play one. I'm more dangerous that way.
Yes, I agree that playing one table can help with focus, but I think it depends heavily on the player and the format. Most experienced online players multitable because once you have a strong fundamental game, playing more tables allows you to increase your volume without necessarily sacrificing too much decision quality.
That said, in tournaments I can definitely see the argument for fewer tables, especially when the fields are tough or you're playing deep. Having more time to process stack sizes, positions, ICM, bet sizing, and opponent tendencies can be worth much more than simply increasing volume.
For me, the key isn't really “one table vs. many tables”, it's finding the maximum number of tables where your decision-making remains consistently sharp.
That said, in tournaments I can definitely see the argument for fewer tables, especially when the fields are tough or you're playing deep. Having more time to process stack sizes, positions, ICM, bet sizing, and opponent tendencies can be worth much more than simply increasing volume.
For me, the key isn't really “one table vs. many tables”, it's finding the maximum number of tables where your decision-making remains consistently sharp.
It’s easy for me to manage the early and middle stages, but during the critical late stages—like yesterday, for instance—you tend to focus intensely on the specific situation you're in, such as the pre-bubble or a final table. That’s exactly what happened to me yesterday while playing two CardsChat tournaments simultaneously. I was at a tense final table in the WPT event, while the PartyPoker tournament hadn't reached that stage yet; however, without realizing it, I neglected some plays on PartyPoker because I was so focused on the WPT final table, and that caused me to lose positions on PartyPoker.
I completely agree. Playing fewer tables gives you more time to observe your opponents and pick up information that stats alone can’t show. For me, the quality of decisions is much more important than the number of tables I can play.BillyR23 said:
Exactly, that’s one of the biggest advantages of playing a single table. You have time to notice small changes in your opponents’ behavior and adjust accordingly, instead of making decisions automatically. Those small reads can make a big difference over time.Mohamed48 said:
I can see your point, especially about reducing the emotional impact of a bad beat. Playing multiple tables can definitely help you focus on the bigger picture instead of getting attached to one result. For me, though, it still depends on the player’s ability to maintain focus and not miss important information.thwenth1983 said:
I completely agree with your perspective on multi-tabling. Focus is everything in poker, and playing too many tables at once definitely leads to missing critical details. Beginners should stick to one or two tables to properly learn the game and study their opponents' habits closely. Quality of decision-making always beats quantity in the end.Luvepoker said:
You make an excellent point about finding that personal sweet spot. While multi-tabling is great for volume, your distinction about tournaments is crucial because stack sizes and ICM pressure require deep thought. Ultimately, it is not about a fixed number, but knowing where your own decision quality starts to drop. Staying sharp and adaptable across your chosen tables is what truly maximizes your long-term win rate.Mantinhoo said:
One or two tables is recommended if you're just getting started or still learning a new game... but if you've been playing for awhile you really should strive to add in more. One would think that one's intuitive process improves greatly and over time - - you will recognize certain spots frequently and will intuitively know how to deal with them. Many of today's regs. are playing upwards of a dozen tables at a time (some are even playing 20-24 tables earlier in their sessions). I'm referring to profiting regs. including some of the best.
