Question for multi players

Minimizing all screens i can fit 9 at most. Just play tight, play boards. To much to play people.

i use it on cash tables usually, but just 4 at a time. 10 handed tables require pretty tight play most of the time anyway so you just sit back and relax : )

I find 4 is the most i can comfortably play, but 3 is my max if im playing mtts as you have to get a little more involved as it goes along : )

i can get about the same,,,7,8,9 tables at once,,but with that # its hard to tell a club from a spade,,i can eaisly do 4 at a time,,but thats it,,and then,,one does not have sufficient time to watch the table and play your opponets,,you are only able to play your cards..cant watch to see who is what/where, and how they are playing,,but thats me,,gl all

THEY DON'T plain and simple.

Don't get me wrong, I realize that it is possable to actually have 3-4-or even 15 tables open on 2-3-or more sites at a given time. But having them up and running is NOT EVEN CLOSE TO "PLAYING" THEM!!!!

It is a proven FACT that no matter how good a person is at a given task they will ALWAYS be able to perform at their best when giving their full attention to a SINGLE task. and for every single thing you add to that ,thier peak performance drops SHARPLY. GREAT at one= Average at three = poor at seven. PERIOD!!!!!

And this fact is especially true when applying it to a complex activity like poker, which requires FOCUS, ATTENTION TO SUBTLE DETAILS, PROCESSING COMPLEX AND ALWAYS CHANGING DYNAMICS, and SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. and so much more.

Exercising your eye hand co-ordination and testing your responce times to flashing lights IS A VERY VERY LONGGGGGGGG WAY FROM ACTUALLY PLAYING ANYTHING REMOTELY CLOSE TO POKER

I am just saying

I play S'nGos up to 8 tables at the same time. It helps me because I don't have the patience to wait for hands if I'm playing only 2 or 3 tables.

On cash tables I usually play 4 tables because you need to get a better read on your opponents.

if you contact full tilt they have a program that will allow you to play up to i think 16 tbls at one time....

I would have to disagree with what you say Ironman, I play 3 to 4 10 handed cash games at once usually each time I play. If you have a set strategy down, realise who the multitablers and strong players are, and once your involved in a hand on any table, your attention goes 100% onto that game.

By spreading your chances of seeing 4 times the amount of hands each hour means if anything, you can actually tighten up your game and still show more profit for your time spent playing.

All the time im aware of who the strong or other multi tablers are, and more times than not its usually the single table players, playing too many hands, taking too many risks, sometimes out of boredom it seems and come on and drop money. Ive sat at one table sometimes for 3/4 hrs and broke even while on another table in the same space ive tripled up, i feel you need to maximise your chances if the opportunity is there.

and trust me, im playing poker : )

I am sure YOU are thinlizard, It is much more likely that 100 years of actual scientific studies conducted on everyone from Astonaughts, to Fighter pilots, to super genisis, to world class athletes, to grand masters of activities like chess and poker is completely wrong, and YOU can actually play at your highest level of proficiency by splitting your attention 4 or more times.

So there !!!

relax man : ) I just said i disagree that my attention levels are effected by playing 4 tables, if anything my attention span is heightened as I am forced to pay closer attention to the game for shorter intense periods without rest, instead of long periods where your attention will dwindle. If im on a single table ill be messing about, checking the internet, downloading music, checking emails out of boredom most of the time, maybe thats just me.

Sure i may miss subtle moves or plays by some players, but my increasing the amount of hands played, i can tighten my game and play better hands and situations in shorter spaces of time thus improving my odds, and be 100% active and focused on the game.

For example, last night I seen 60 hands in the space of 1 1/2 hours on one table. X 4 means for that time i seen 240 hands in that short session, giving my full attention to my set plan.

If I see 240 hands on 1 table I need 6 hrs, and its quite difficult to give full attention, without breaks for 6 hrs on 1 table when I may not even play a hand for 20 - 25 hands on some occasions, and sometimes even hands that I am involved in I get no action on or are over after the flop.

You wil find most internet players that make money from cash tables multitable : ) Just saying man, glglgl

ps, im half man half lizard so im superhuman : ) hehe

Well just your lizard half alone should gain a measurable edge, you know having your eyes looking in two exactly opposite directions LOL

IMO, if you are playing 6 or 9 player sng's I would bet that more than 50% of the time, the person "playing" isn't. He/she is what I call a professional sitter. They hope that by sitting out, everyone else will get tired of waiting for them to blind out and go ahead and play themselves off the table. The sitter is hoping to get in the top paying finishers by frustrating the other people that really are playing.

I have played as many as 8 MTTs at once, but I found that for me, I do better playing no more than 3 and preferably 2. Invariably, it seems that I get no playable hands on all the tables for a period of time, but when I get a good hand that needs my attention...I get playable hands on other tables at the same time...This usually results in one or more hands getting timed out and folded. I may still occasionally play 4 or 5 freerolls, but never over 2 buy-ins at once.

cascade and tile your windows. That'll let you play 4 tables at once. Unless you're an MIT graduate and you've beaten Splatterhouse about 50 times, I don't recommend playing more than that until you have a big bankroll and a plan.

just to add, cash tables are a little different and more straight forward to play multiple tables.

If you are thinking of playing mutliple sit an goes or mtts, then the best way is to try and stagger the start times, say 20mins inbetween for each sit an goe, if you are planning on sitting down for a long period and playing quite a few.

Means that it will effect your game less when one table becomes short handed, and you have to apply more attention to that game, so if you stagger them out by at least 2 blind levels space for each, its much easier : )

mtts are pretty much ten handed all the way so not as much of a problem.

glglgl

4 is most I do,,, and done it so long,,, get used to it,, get bored with only one, BUT if I am in an important or larger than usual money game,, I pare it down to 2 at most,, I could see where lizard has a point on hand counts read stuff o that more than once... If one plays tight, gonna have a chance at more "premium" hands may try that on ring games some day

There is a video on Youtube of Hevad Khan playing 27 sng's at once. Crazy

I prefer playing 2-3 games at once, tourneys, sngs. If I am playing ring, where more money is inherently at risk, the most I will play is 2, because I feel the need to get a sense of the other players. The raise against the weak player will not happen if you don't know who the chicken is. The call or reraise against the rock who has just raised big will happen, because I have not noticed that the person has not played any hands in ages and I am not as cautious as I should be against him. Taking away the playing-the-players possibility limits the opportunities for profits which I could otherwise see.

I seldom will play only one table at a time, because I get tired of waiting for good hands. With more tables open, I will see more action and will not become bored. I have, on many occasions, made final tables in two mtt tournaments, playing them at the same time. So it is hard for me to think that it is hurting my play. That said, if I am playing a tourney for more of a buy in than normal, I am more likely to play that one by itself, so I can concentrate. Patience then becomes a real issue. I make notes on the other players, then, when I am not in a hand, and sometimes those notes come in very handy later.

So it's a balancing act between playing a multi-faceted game and playing too many places to pay sufficient attention.

THEY DON'T plain and simple.

Don't get me wrong, I realize that it is possable to actually have 3-4-or even 15 tables open on 2-3-or more sites at a given time. But having them up and running is NOT EVEN CLOSE TO "PLAYING" THEM!!!!

It is a proven FACT that no matter how good a person is at a given task they will ALWAYS be able to perform at their best when giving their full attention to a SINGLE task. and for every single thing you add to that ,thier peak performance drops SHARPLY. GREAT at one= Average at three = poor at seven. PERIOD!!!!!

And this fact is especially true when applying it to a complex activity like poker, which requires FOCUS, ATTENTION TO SUBTLE DETAILS, PROCESSING COMPLEX AND ALWAYS CHANGING DYNAMICS, and SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. and so much more.

Exercising your eye hand co-ordination and testing your responce times to flashing lights IS A VERY VERY LONGGGGGGGG WAY FROM ACTUALLY PLAYING ANYTHING REMOTELY CLOSE TO POKER

I am just saying

You are just 'saying'... but you are wrong sir. Let me explain with 'fact' to back it up. While it is true that most sng players ROI will drop as they increase the number of tables that they are playing, for some the drop is very insignificant until they are on say for example, 'more than 4tables'. Here's the tradeoff that they take into consideration. Let's say (hypothetically speaking) that Joe Blow runs with an avg. ROI of +18% in sngs (yes, Joe is good and plays the $16turbos on Stars). Joe discovers that when he runs on 4tables, his ROI drops to +15% but his hourly rate has increased by so much that it is more than worth it to Joe (incidentally, these figures are about what you'd see for the difference with a typical sng grinder... not a hugely significant drop).

Here's the thing I believe you are missing especially when it comes to SNG play. An experienced SNG grinder's play in sngs becomes almost robotic in nature (none of the decisions are very difficult to make at all, especially at the buyin level he chooses to multi-table at (incidentally, many of them are on the $16-$33 turbos, although you'll also find alot at lower buyins too, more so on turbos than on regs.). SNG strategy basically requires one to play tight & aggressive in early levels, avoiding big confrontations. As blinds increase, blind stealing becomes a must. Objective being to maintain a stack that has decent fold equity for when it comes time to shove/fold nearing bubble. Good SNG players are so adept at playing these games, that when the game becomes more or less a 'math game' (via I.C.M.) these guys have made so many decisions based on I.C.M. that it becomes almost automatic for them (this is after a good length of time playing and STUDYING these games, using an ICM calc. while reviewing HandHistories, reading & adding to multiple posts of other SNG grinders, etc.).

Basically what I'm saying is.... the decisions needing to be made in a SNG become pretty much automatic for the good players. They also get faster & faster at making these decisions. It gets 'easy' for them.

Next example... Boku87 on Pokerstars nbsp; recently put out a challenge... he claimed he could turn $100 into $10,000 in 15days via SNG's and promised to never play at a buyin level above $16 (but at first with only $100 in the account, he would have to stick to the $1 buyins due to good BRM. Boku87 was at times multi-tabling to the tune of 50tables simultaneously, all on one monitor!! His average ROI was above 27% over this large sample size and easily passed his expectations of $10,000 in 15days!!!

Ironman.... do we tell Boku87 that he'd do much better by playing on just one table? I don't think so. Sure this is an extreme example..BUT.. it is the 'norm' for SNG grinders (established & educated SNG players) to multi-table while playing SNGs and actually they consider it a 'must'. A good SNG player's ROI will not reduce by much if any when playing on 4tables and most prefer to play on 8 or more at a time (of course it varies... via experimentation they obviously calculate out what gives them the best hourly win rate).

Personally I'm only a recreational SNG player at best and most often will only play two at a time but I do get my info. from those who are very accomplished at them. I've never even experimented at seeing how significant of a drop my ROI would take if I were to add on more tables as it is not my main objective while playing them (not interested in an hourly win rate... and I'm a HUGE bankroll NIT).

I have difficulty reading what you claim here and wonder what kind of experience it is based upon (just your own?.... or??).

If you currently run at a negative ROI, then I would strongly recommend to 'not' multi-table at all. There are a bunch of basic principles involved with SNG play and once you get those down it is highly recommend to multi-table them (but again it really depends on one's own personal objectives).

sidenote.. when playing Fullring cash tables I run 6 to 8 tables, on 6-MaxNL I prefer to run 4. SNG's & MTT's, I usually only play on 2.