# How many tables?

• Bronze
Joined: 18.12.2009
Based on what data/statistics should one figure out how many tables to play at once? Is it a must to multitable in order to make significant profit? How to determine whether it would be more profitable to play less/more tables or not?
• 3 replies
• Bronze
Joined: 02.12.2010
If you only play 1 table, you're better of playing live poker.

Multitable as much tables as you can manage & feel comfortable with (this means you shouldn't play so many tables it affects your ABC game, multitabling shouldn't make you do bad decisions). In full ring, I usually play 10-14 tables. Shorthanded with 6-8.

When you advance up limits (especially out of the micros), then it's probably a good idea to just play ~2 tables at a time, until you feel ready to add more tables.

If you feel multitabling is reducing your profits, just remove a few tables.
• Bronze
Joined: 18.12.2009
Ok, that is good advice, but I was wondering how to compare the profitability of playing 4 or 12 tables/ 12 or 24 tables aso. Is there any way to do it with the help of some kind of poker software?
• Bronze
Joined: 02.12.2010
I don't know if there is software specifically designed for that purpose, but you could do it manually.

While it might seem that mt'ing reduces your BB/100 (since you are less opponent aware), you have to take into account the fact that you play more hands in the same amount of time.

So if you're using elephant/PT/HEM whatever, you could just experiment by yourself. Play sessions with both 4 & 14 tables (pick the numbers yourself). Then just see which method gives you more money /hour. For example in PT (I'm sure HEM has it as well), you can organize sessions by time, and you can just check the \$/h of all the tables played during that session combined, so you don't necessarily have to do this as an afterthought, you might already have a big sample. You can also see the MT ratio, which (I think) is the average number of simultaneous tables over that session.

The bad thing is, you'd need a big sample size to get real proof, since variance will no doubt influence the results alot. You'd also need to get the sample from the same limit instead of mix matching. You'd also want to really stick to keeping sessions "clean" (12 tables, 1h+, close session afterwards), so it's easy to compare, instead of playing both 5-6 & 9-10 tables in one session (like in the picture).

Personally, this is all a bit too analytical for me, I'd rather go by feel and reduce tables if I feel mt'ing is reducing my profits due to lesser time to act. On the hand, micros are so ABC it's not really an issue. There are only a few standard odds you have to remember (flush draw, oesd, flush + gutshot etc...), and I'm so used to my hud I can snapshot the relevant info in a heartbeat. Fish & regs are also easy to spot from VPIP & aggression etc.

Personally the reason why I mt is that I'd be bored to death 6-tabling FR. I need a minimum of 9 tables or I get bored and start playing more hands.