Things that ruins online poker for no reason

    • k0kki3
      k0kki3
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.11.2011 Posts: 13
      Hello guys! I made this thread to give you something to think about multitabling. I deleted original post, that was only stupid sarcasm:D
  • 24 replies
    • SDK1987
      SDK1987
      Moderator
      Moderator
      Joined: 12.11.2008 Posts: 29,260
      Hello k0kki3

      Welcome on the PokerStrategy forum :welcome:

      That’s pretty sick that you play so many tables at once, but I think it’s most likely better for you’re learning progress and win rate if you play less tables. Now you most likely play on auto-pilot mode and it’s difficult to find your own leaks this way.

      Hopefully you can play 40 tables also at least break-even, but I’m more a player that likes quality more than quantity.

      Further I wish you a pleasant stay on the forum and if you have any questions don’t hesitate to ask them.

      Best regards,
      SDK1987
    • NutzAreOk
      NutzAreOk
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.01.2011 Posts: 7,409
      Well my opinion is that if you want to be BE 40 tabling grinder, go for it. Then if someone wants really crush the games and play less tables and focus more on less tables, go for it.

      Anyway, gl! :f_thumbsup:
    • k0kki3
      k0kki3
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.11.2011 Posts: 13
      Thank you!
      Actually I play only 4 tables maximum, usually less. And the story was kind of sarcasm.

      I wrote it because I know there is multitablers similar that I described, and they hurt my winrate. So does good winning multitablers also of course, but I don't mind because at least they have a good reason to play poker as they are winning some money. But break even multitablers are kind of "useless game dryers". Because of them there are proportionally less real fishes to be found at the tables.

      Also whoever plays more than optimal amount of tables, has same negative effect. They win less for themselfs and at the same time they make games more dry than necessary (from others point of view).

      This hurts everyone, except the pokersites which just gets more rake.
    • NutzAreOk
      NutzAreOk
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.01.2011 Posts: 7,409
      Originally posted by k0kki3
      I wrote it because I know there is multitablers similar that I described, and they hurt my winrate.
      Have you thought how you could increase your winrate against those kind of players instead of just thinking that they hurt your winrate? There`s always ways to exploit other players.
    • SeagalSteven
      SeagalSteven
      Bronze
      Joined: 21.01.2010 Posts: 533
      I don't understand.

      These tougher than fish players are called regulars, and unfortunately you must play against them because they want part of fish money too.

      How do you know btw who are winning regs and who breakeven?
    • k0kki3
      k0kki3
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.11.2011 Posts: 13
      I always try to play my best regardless who Im playing againts.
      And I dont know which regulars are close to breakeven, but there must be lots of those.

      I simply dont understand WHY would anyone bother to play breakeven poker. And WHY would anyone play more than optimal amount of tables.

      Less tables, and breakeven player would start to win some money. Less tables, and winning player playing too many tables would win more money.
      Then there would be proportionally more real mega fishes at tables. Then everyone should be happy, except pokersites that would just get little less rake.
    • k0kki3
      k0kki3
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.11.2011 Posts: 13
      I put in some more of my thoughts.

      In theory, only your winrate and variance/standard deviation will determine what size of bankroll you need. Smaller winrate, the bigger bankroll you will need

      When you playing with tiny winrate, you will need so huge bankroll, it will take ages for you to be able to move up in stakes. Even little higher $/hr you might get from playing more tables, will not compensate that. It makes that your optimal number of tables is actually less than you would normally think.

      So if you are willing to sacrifice a little bit of $/hr temporarily by playing fewer tables with higher winrate, it allows you to take a shot sooner (smaller bankroll needed). Plus you will have better chances to beat that next higher limit.

      This whole multitabling culture has gone way out of control. Please be smart, play fewer tables so you won't dry up the games more than necessary. That will be good for you and everyone else.
    • k0kki3
      k0kki3
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.11.2011 Posts: 13
      Are you really gonna masstable millions of hands, still refusing to get that your poor results are mainly due you're playing far too many tables? While you are doing it, it is for:

      1. reducing your own success
      2. drying up games for no reason

      That is when it becomes really disgraceful. There shouldn't be nothing cool in multitabling in itself. You don't have to play 6 tables minimum, in order to be a seriously taken reg!

      Only good reason to play more tables, is to win more money. And when you don't win more money, it suddently makes no more sense to play that many tables.

      I know it may not be pleasant for some of you, that one comes on forum with this kind of stuff. But I want as many of players would read this thread as possible. And surely I have my own selfish reasons. But since everybody would benefit eventually, I think this is more than legit. GL
    • VorpalF2F
      VorpalF2F
      Super Moderator
      Super Moderator
      Joined: 02.09.2010 Posts: 9,056
      Originally posted by k0kki3
      Only good reason to play more tables, is to win more money. And when you don't win more money, it suddently makes no more sense to play that many tables.
      Hi, k0kki3,
      The primary reason I play more tables is to fight boredom.
      One or two tables of NLHE means that for a large part of the time you're doing nothing.
      I play that few if I'm doing another activity at the same time.

      With 4 tables I can play and takes notes and generally keep up. Above 4 I can still play properly, but the note-taking starts to suffer.

      Above 8 I start to miss some hands, and I'm no longer able to watch all players, and follow all the games -- so that is where I set my limit.

      40? I know that Randy Lew (nanonoko) used to do 24 regularly, but it seems that the more you play at once the more mistakes you'll make. I'm not saying it can't be done, but I think something has to be sacrificed at that many tables.

      All players are different.

      Best of luck to you,
      VS
    • Zanardi1
      Zanardi1
      Bronze
      Joined: 04.01.2010 Posts: 5,602
      I played once 24 tables of play money. I lasted for 2 minutes. It was crazy!
    • k0kki3
      k0kki3
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.11.2011 Posts: 13
      Originally posted by VorpalF2F
      One or two tables of NLHE means that for a large part of the time you're doing nothing.
      I play that few if I'm doing another activity at the same time.

      With 4 tables I can play and takes notes and generally keep up. Above 4 I can still play properly, but the note-taking starts to suffer.

      Above 8 I start to miss some hands, and I'm no longer able to watch all players, and follow all the games -- so that is where I set my limit.
      When you play 2 tables, you can use all time to observing your opponents, and see everything what anyone is doing. It'll give you so huge boost to your winrate, you dont believe! And you will also improve faster that way.

      Just because you CAN play 8 tables, and beat the games, doesn't mean it's your optimal. And, when you are playing above your optimal, you are only unnecessarily drying up the games, which is a very bad thing!

      On top of that, all those useless, lazy, multitabling, breakeven game dryers!

      Do anyone on this forum have any interest in solving those problems?
    • Fiekie247
      Fiekie247
      Bronze
      Joined: 14.06.2015 Posts: 22
      40 Tables sounds like a lot, i can do 3 max lol. Thats it, i can would play maybe more than 3 if i play in tournaments but not cash tables, i lost a lot of money play more than 2 cash tables in NLHE at the same. GL though hope you win lots of money.
      BTW which sites do you play at?
    • k0kki3
      k0kki3
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.11.2011 Posts: 13
      Hi Fiekie! Have you read the whole thread? Thats where the point is.
    • Fiekie247
      Fiekie247
      Bronze
      Joined: 14.06.2015 Posts: 22
      Yeah sure.

      I got you!
    • VorpalF2F
      VorpalF2F
      Super Moderator
      Super Moderator
      Joined: 02.09.2010 Posts: 9,056
      Originally posted by k0kki3
      When you play 2 tables, you can use all time to observing your opponents, and see everything what anyone is doing. It'll give you so huge boost to your winrate, you dont believe! And you will also improve faster that way.
      Hi, k0kki3,
      Yes, I *can* use all my time to observe opponents, but I usually do something on the side.

      With two tables, I can usually work on my online courses, post on the forums and do emails and still keep up. Perhaps I might do better if I stopped the other stuff, but then I'd add two more tables.

      <sigh>

      We live in a multi-tasking world. I've read recently of a couple of studies that suggest that fragmenting our attention is not helping us at all.

      Poker is a prime example of that.

      Cheers,
      VS
    • IvicaIliev77
      IvicaIliev77
      Silver
      Joined: 31.05.2012 Posts: 3,817
      Reality of online poker vs live poker = rake and rake back. If you play live you get no rake back but pay rake.
      It is true that if you play fewer tables you get to focus more on your decisions, take reads on opponents and have bigger win rate potentially. One thing that you forget is that to reach point of unconscious competence in your decisions (to recall things from memory fast enough), you need to challenge yourself where it is not insanely difficult but difficult enough to constantly force yourself to recall things in your game plan from memory. This is why some people would play 2-4-6-10-20+ tables. For some their game plan is so solid that playing lesser tables doesn't do anything better for their game plan, in fact it makes it worse because they reach a point of having same win rate with 6 vs 10 tables but with 10 tables they make more money (hourly) due to higher amount of hands per hour and rake back!
      Finally, if you don't like guys who mass multi table, then you haven't understood the basic difference of online vs live poker (more hands per hour by higher number of tables, more rake, more rake back, more experience to learn from while grinding etc).
    • NutzAreOk
      NutzAreOk
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.01.2011 Posts: 7,409
      Great post from IvicaIliev77.

      You might every now and then miss some profitable spots while multitabling but it doesn`t mean that you are breakeven rakeback grinder.
    • k0kki3
      k0kki3
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.11.2011 Posts: 13
      Maybe you should read again the whole page.

      I have no problem with multitablers, who are sure it's best for them, and really knows what they're doing.

      I was only criticizing those, who constantly plays more tables than optimal for whatever reason, boredom, believing it's just variance, think nanonoko's cool, or maybe they are just used to play 9 or 12 tables.
    • k0kki3
      k0kki3
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.11.2011 Posts: 13
      Multitabler, doesn't matter mediocre or pro, who plays few more tables than what's optimal for him, are UNNECESSARILY drying up the games. Experienced poker player, who doesn't understand this, are incredible stupid!

      Are there anyone willing to get rid of this problem and make games a bit softer for everyone?
    • 1
    • 2