Jump to content

i need your help - experience with mutli-tabling


Recommended Posts

i am intending to play 35 hours a week for 3 months this summer (yes im a student).without sounding like an arrogant prat, id consider, like most of us are here, to be a very good NL and limit player.what would you do in my situation? NL or limit? my starting bankroll will be $1200 - i will try hard not to 'dip into it' to pay for items - ie so i can move up limits.id consider myself best at short handed limit.part of me is thinking doing the classic 4 tabling ring limits. in which case id start with $2-$4 to give me 300BBif i were to earn 1.3BB/hour (or 2BB/100), first week id of earnt 1.3x4 (no.of.tables)x4(BB)x35(no.hours)=$728is $728 realistic in 35 hours of 4 tabling 2-4? obviously be massively down to variance, but in theory do you guys acheive this? (rate of $20 an hour four tabling 2-4?)if this is realistic, id expect to then have a bankroll of $1900ish and move up to 3-6 the next week.say my rate drops to 1.1 an hour, id then win 1.1x4x6x35=924id then have a bankroll of 2800 and move up to 4-8and i conitnue rising so long as my bankroll sticks with 300BB, and if it drops below that ill drop to a lower limit till it rises back up. and find the limit which has the highest $$/hr and stay therebasically im asking for your guys experience as to whether this is a realistic plan? are the numbers of hourly rate realistic?

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you don't normally play 35 hours a week, your results are not going to be as good as you're thinking. 35 hours a week is no easy feat to pull off.also, with your statistics, you're playing around 8000 hands a week. this is a small sample, and variance will kick your ass in this sample, so don't expect to make $700 your first week. for all you know, you might break even or end down a little or end up $200 or end up $2000. 10,000 hands is barely a statistically significant sample, and you're not even playing that many hands in a week.that said, it can be done, and good luck, but i'd set my goals a little lower when you're starting out.aseem

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely limitThe action's better for one thing. At 2/4 it's easier to find 3 or 4 tables. Also, NL is definitely the ultimate variance game, so you want stability I presume.NL is fun, and great for clearing tough bonuses, but play limit ;)Oh, and I wouldn't start with 35 hours right away. I'd slowly build up from like 20

Link to post
Share on other sites
ppffffffffft. 300bb? all you need is 4 buyins!
why would you need more than 2???because you're a fish, that's why.aseem
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 buy ins for no limit short handed yes, 300 BB for limit, yes.over infinity period id have 10 buy ins for short handed, but over the course of a year i might need to reload once with 5 buy ins, so no real need to have anymore in.thanks for the replies so far, very useful to hear fromt those who know about doing this.also, i reckon short handed their must be worse players as its more action like and you'll get the more impatient players, just a thought

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 buy ins for no limit short handed yes, 300 BB for limit, yes.over infinity period id have 10 buy ins for short handed, but over the course of a year i might need to reload once with 5 buy ins, so no real need to have anymore in.thanks for the replies so far, very useful to hear fromt those who know about doing this.also, i reckon short handed their must be worse players as its more action like and you'll get the more impatient players, just a thought
i reckon you have no clue what you are talking about. How on earth can you need 300BB for full ring limit (a relatively low-risk game), but only 5 buyins for short NL, which is the highest variance game you can play?
Link to post
Share on other sites

can we please drop this 5 buy in for short handed, i was driven away the first time, and i like the informative posts here, so please, can we stick to my initial post. my style of short handed NL means i dont drop more than 5 buy ins, and am a regula winner, please can we leave it at that, cheers.at the moment, im playing around 20 hours a week. without any uni commitments id find more time. although i can imagine it getting pretty tiring, but so long as i have some good music it should be manageable hopefully

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you were playing recreationally, i would leave your five buy-in philosophy alone, but you're making a post about earning steady income, and i can guarantee you that if you plan to multi-table 35 hours a week, you will go bust.aseem

Link to post
Share on other sites

i wouldnt stick with the 5 buy in rule over this summer, as suggested, id be playing a 35 hour week. but more importantly, id be looking to move up limits. with staying at 5 buy ins ive been staying at the same limits (2-4NL), and have built up enough money so that if i were ever to drop the buy ins it would really matter as i could reload.but if i were playing this over the summer and had built up a bankroll and moved up to say 10-20NL only to hit a real bad run and lose it all and have to start off again at 1-2NL i simply couldnt do it that way.but playing 20 hours a weak, playing no big bluff bet style, it works fine for me

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont take this the wrong way. Just wondering if you have really thought about this.Have you considered how much it is going to suck multitabling 35 hours a week? I think that you will have a big problem with keeping focus for those long hours. You are going to be distracted by the fridge, roommates, girlfriend, life, whatever. Also, there is a strong possibility that a job will pay off much better than 35 hours of online poker. I for one, get bored after three hours of 1-2 tabling. I can't imagine doing it for 35 hours a week. Anyway, not trying to flame you, but this is my first thought on your idea. If you can do this and make money, I would like to hear the story. Keep FCP posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I for one, get bored after three hours of 1-2 tabling.  I can't imagine doing it for 35 hours a week.
Doesn't seem that hard. It's 12 3 hour sessions. One in the morning, one in the afternoon, and get a couple in on the weekend. No commute time and no prep time for going to work. No long sessions (just a bunch of short ones). This is way less of an impact than actually going to a job. If you're a winning player and know you will make money, I'd go for it. I'd probably 2-table for a week first and add tables as I see my win-rate stay stable, but other than that, have at it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I love players that push their luck and play @ stakes above their bankroll... and I once resembled that remark :)That being said... you may want to rethink your 3 tables @ $2/4 on a $1200 BR...The 300xBB suggested bankroll is for a single table with approximately 1% chance of going broke...You are wanting 3 table action resulting in 3 x (2/4 X 300) = 3600 roughly... the variance can and will eat you up... (ie $5k b/r ... playing on $5/10, 20+ hours / wk, variance $3k in 2 months)* * * I'm assuming you want to win $$ and move up to win $$ and move up * * * LOLNLHE is the way to go to build a bankroll @ $5/10 or lower stakesLHE is optional at high stakes, the rake is less of an issueI would suggest $.50/1.00 for two, three or four tables (it's like shooting skeet) for 3 - 4 days... 25 - 30 "live" hours... this will give some needed information on how your can handle fatigue / focus / variance PLUS you should be able to increase your BR at these phishy levels (Party, Paradise, Stars, PokerPlex)100+ table hours in 3 - 4 days should show you your leaks...If you don't have pokertracker, buy it (you better be tight aggressive) to make a go @ 10k by the end of the summer...If you haven't played internet poker before, I would cut everything above in half for the first month... it is easy to 'believe' in your abilities, jump up in stakes and loss in a few hours what is has taken weeks or months to gather...Good LuckLet us know when you go broke

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Miked...that's not right. Variance doesn't know how many tables you're playing on. 1000 hands is 1000 hands wether you're playing 1 table for 1000 hands or wether you're 100-tabling for 10 hands. As long as your game doesn't deteriorate of course. Statistically it's exactly the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the furthur thoughts.firstly, as said above in above post, it doesnt matter how many tables your playing - you need 300BB no matter how many tables. ive often done 8 hour sessions and i find time goes very quick, im often annoyed by how quick the time goes by, but never done it as a 3-4 tabling limit ring. at limit i am almost a robot, i know all the relevant odds and implied pot odds, all the ways of when to slowplay, checkraise, positional play etc, my worry isnt about my skill level, just about what my hourly rate could/should be throughout the summer as i progressyes 35 hours a week is a big task, but ill see how it goes, its not as bad as a job where id spend about 5-6 hours a week travelling - plus i enjoy listening to music - which i can do while playing. despite only being a student, ive clocked up a lot of hours, enough to be a good winner over a long period for well over a year, read (and reread, rather than my academic books) 10 or so books, i know i can do well (only problem is mentally dealing with variance, it always annoys me, but i havent gone on tilt since last year, ive taken so many beats im used to it).im thinking i may give a couple of weeks at NL just to get a rough hourly rate, probably wise.cheers for the thoughts, they do help a lot, makes me, and hopefully all of us think a bit more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't do it the 300bb rule and don't do it playing limit.If you have 1200, this is what you do.Go Play NO MORE than 2 tables of 1/2NL ($200 max buy in), play until you have doubled your stacks on both tables/lost your initial stack, and then quit for the day. You should be able to double up within the first hour, there will be a hand for you to do this, just be patient and make sure to get full value of all your good hands. That includes going all in with AA preflop no matter what.This should, assuming you are as good as you say you are, take you no more than 3 hours a day with vriance, and if you hit 3 hours, stop for the session and come back in a few hours. You will make a min of $400 a day. Play only 5 days a week, not on weekends you need the break or choose two consecuive other days to take break. This will give you $2000 /wk playing about 15 hours of poker.Anyone who thinks this is not possible, has not played NL online for long enough or is just not good enough.Lastly, the only time you should EVER rebuy after you lost your initial stack, is if you have played for a while, are in control of the table, but for some reason got all your money in with the best hand and got outdrawn on the river. By this I mean two pair, getting outdrawn (not by a flush) or flopping nut str8 and losing to flush. etc.. And when you do rebuy, only rebuy for half the maximum. Good Luck, I bet you can do this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

first off, i really wish you best of luck in this. i had planned on doing something similar for the summer, so i can share some of my insights.Firstly, $1200 is a little low. Not prohibitively low necessarily, but you are likely not to be playing to your full potential immediately, despite your experience. Your win rate will be significantly lower multi-tabling (although likely more than 1/4, which means it is still worth your while). Your variance will then be a bit higher initially, towards the negative end.$1200 is probably close to enough, but you could find yourself getting quite low on that, so if you are not prepared for that, you may want to build it higher. Personally, I started around $1500, and when I took a few bad hits and got down to $1300 It affected me too much mentally to continue at it, mostly because it shook my confidence since I'd never multi-tabled a significant amount.Just a warning.If you are willing to spend a significant amount of time, maybe start off playing 2 low limit NL tables to build your bankroll a bit, then go for 4-tabling 2-4.Also, 35 hours a week is a lot. I know its just a regular job, but I was not able to multi-table more than a couple hours in a row. If you have been able to play this long, go right ahead, but be warned, it is not easy.Finally, I can only advise its only money. Making 1-2bb/100 (probably starting at the low end and hopefully finishing at the high end on average) you can make $10-20 per hour, and 50% higher when you move up to 3-6. thats pretty good. but not as good as an afternoon barbecuing with the guys, or meeting a nice girl at the bar, etc etc.so sorry to ramble and give you life advice, but just thought i'd give you my thoughts, since I had exactly the same plan for the summer, and have since strayed pretty far from it.Cheers,Daniel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming you haven't multi-tabled much, but are intelligent and know your poker, it should only take you a 30-50 hours to adjust to 4 tables with a very comparable winrate. Pokertracker and GT+/PV are a must, as you probably already know. The consensus seems to be limit is better, but I'd like to hear more on this.Assuming you're play is a ssound as you claim, your gola should be to move up to 5/10 6 max at party asap. You say shorthanded limit is your strongsuit, and this is possibly the most profitable game on the internet for realtive amateurs (or amateur/pros) that you dont need a great bankroll for. If you are very confident I might even consider trying to find backers, starting off at 2 table, and working from there. This game is as easy as 2/4 ring, plus you get to play many more hands/hr and its higher limit.I dont have the BR or SH limit skill to play in this game atm, but I have real life friends (2 of them) making about 300$/hour over 200k hands 8 tabling this game. Thats better than many doctors make.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i thought id let you know whats developed so far;well, despite not being my official summer yet (still got exams), i thought id experiment a bit for a day or two till i have to start revising, oh joy.i decided to give NL a try. i deposited $1000 into my poker account, and played the $50NL sit downs (2-3 tables) and the omaha hi and hi-lo (1-2 tables). ive bought pokertracker, but only for holdem, as i wanted to see how id fair with omaha and if it were worth buying.omaha high has gone okay, but hi-low im giving up on - anytime ive had the nut low its been a split pot and it just seems like a low profitable game compared with omaha high (where i just sit there waiting for the nuts and hopefully extract maximum $).i have to say the $50 holdem sit downs have been fun. much less pressure than the $200 sit downs ive often played and the standard is noticeably lower.ive made one mistake which cost me $50, bad play and i knew it (A3vs36 with us both rivering our gutshots, i weak bet, he massive raises, i stupidly dont flat call as from what ive seen hes been loose and i push in for the rest, terrible play from me), but other than that ive played very well i think.ive only played for 7 hours, with 1,200 hands (i havent got omaha poker tracker yet), and am up $189. its not that im to bothered about, more than the $50NL sit downs ive been happy with and on those exclusively im on 21BB($)/hour per table. - i dropped $35 on 1-2L and up on omaha and down on omaha low.obviously this is all a pityful number of hands etc, but the general indication is i reckon i could pretty easily pick up $200 a day doing the $50NL sit downs till i can build up a chunky bankroll to be comfortable on the higher limits (after all, i dont want to spend my summer playing the $50NL sit downs, where's the ambition in that....)good luck alljohn

Link to post
Share on other sites
if i were to earn 1.3BB/hour (or 2BB/100)' date=' first week id of earnt 1.3x4 (no.of.tables)x4(BB)x35(no.hours)=$728is $728 realistic in 35 hours of 4 tabling 2-4? obviously be massively down to variance, but in theory do you guys acheive this? (rate of $20 an hour four tabling 2-4?)if this is realistic, id expect to then have a bankroll of $1900ish and move up to 3-6 the next week.say my rate drops to 1.1 an hour, id then win 1.1x4x6x35=924quote']I think your math is wrong, but I don't muti table so maybe I don't understand your use of the terminology BB/100.My understanding is this: If you play 2/4 and win 2BB/100 then you are making $8/100 hands . If this statement is incorrect then everything that follows is wrong also.So lets assume with just single table play I can see 100 hands in 2 hours. I am then making $8 evry 2 hours or $4/hour. Now if I am going to play 4 tables all I am going to do is increase the rate at which I play 100 hands. In this case I will now play 400 hands every 2 hours and if I maintain my $8/100 hands I will now make $32 in 2 hours or $16/ hour. If I play for 35 hours I will make $560Am I way off on this?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Definitely limitThe action's better for one thing. At 2/4 it's easier to find 3 or 4 tables. Also, NL is definitely the ultimate variance game, so you want stability I presume.NL is fun, and great for clearing tough bonuses, but play limit ;)Oh, and I wouldn't start with 35 hours right away. I'd slowly build up from like 20
I personally feel, unless you suck, that there is less variance in NL. I see much more variance when I'm playing limit as opposed to NL. If you play tight yet aggressive and know how to fold, NL is fairly risk free long term, IMO.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Definitely limitThe action's better for one thing. At 2/4 it's easier to find 3 or 4 tables. Also, NL is definitely the ultimate variance game, so you want stability I presume.NL is fun, and great for clearing tough bonuses, but play limit ;)Oh, and I wouldn't start with 35 hours right away. I'd slowly build up from like 20
I personally feel, unless you suck, that there is less variance in NL. I see much more variance when I'm playing limit as opposed to NL. If you play tight yet aggressive and know how to fold, NL is fairly risk free long term, IMO.
put simply, if NL is less variance than limit for you at the same blind levels, you're not playing aggressive enough at NL to make optimum profit. you certainly CAN play NL with a style that will have less variance yet make money, but it's not going to make you a better player generally, nor is it going to make you the most money you can make at the level you're playing.you should steal blinds and pots from late position to develop an aggressive image and get paid off in full when you have the nuts. but yes, this style has a higher variance than a very tight style that you're talking about.also, it's worth mentioning that playing supertight like you're saying will not win money against good players. you play like that against me and you'll never win a pot bigger than the blinds.
Link to post
Share on other sites
if i were to earn 1.3BB/hour (or 2BB/100), first week id of earnt 1.3x4 (no.of.tables)x4(BB)x35(no.hours)=$728is $728 realistic in 35 hours of 4 tabling 2-4? obviously be massively down to variance, but in theory do you guys acheive this? (rate of $20 an hour four tabling 2-4?)if this is realistic, id expect to then have a bankroll of $1900ish and move up to 3-6 the next week.say my rate drops to 1.1 an hour, id then win 1.1x4x6x35=924
I think your math is wrong, but I don't muti table so maybe I don't understand your use of the terminology BB/100.My understanding is this: If you play 2/4 and win 2BB/100 then you are making $8/100 hands . If this statement is incorrect then everything that follows is wrong also.So lets assume with just single table play I can see 100 hands in 2 hours. I am then making $8 evry 2 hours or $4/hour. Now if I am going to play 4 tables all I am going to do is increase the rate at which I play 100 hands. In this case I will now play 400 hands every 2 hours and if I maintain my $8/100 hands I will now make $32 in 2 hours or $16/ hour. If I play for 35 hours I will make $560Am I way off on this?
You're making a different assumption than he is. Yours is the assumption that 2BB/100 = 1BB/hr (50 hands per hour). He's making the assumption that 2BB/100 = 1.3 BB/hr (65 hands per hour). Also, that multiplication that he shows is incorrect, 1.3*4*4*35 = $686. (I'm guessing he either typoed a 1.4 here or typoed a 1.4 on his calculator, because that would work perfectly.)However, both ways of computing the weekly rate based off of these assumptions is valid.As far as the assumptions themselves, whether 2 BB/100 = 1 BB/hr or 2 BB/100 = 1.3 BB/hr probably depends on the type of game being played, how many players, etc. I play the $0.25/$0.50 limit at Stars and am averaging about 55 hands per hour (2 BB/100 = 1.1 BB/hr) at relatively full tables (I leave once it gets down to six-handed unless it's wildly profitable).
Link to post
Share on other sites
if i were to earn 1.3BB/hour (or 2BB/100), first week id of earnt 1.3x4 (no.of.tables)x4(BB)x35(no.hours)=$728is $728 realistic in 35 hours of 4 tabling 2-4? obviously be massively down to variance, but in theory do you guys acheive this? (rate of $20 an hour four tabling 2-4?)if this is realistic, id expect to then have a bankroll of $1900ish and move up to 3-6 the next week.say my rate drops to 1.1 an hour, id then win 1.1x4x6x35=924
I think your math is wrong, but I don't muti table so maybe I don't understand your use of the terminology BB/100.My understanding is this: If you play 2/4 and win 2BB/100 then you are making $8/100 hands . If this statement is incorrect then everything that follows is wrong also.So lets assume with just single table play I can see 100 hands in 2 hours. I am then making $8 evry 2 hours or $4/hour. Now if I am going to play 4 tables all I am going to do is increase the rate at which I play 100 hands. In this case I will now play 400 hands every 2 hours and if I maintain my $8/100 hands I will now make $32 in 2 hours or $16/ hour. If I play for 35 hours I will make $560Am I way off on this?
You're making a different assumption than he is. Yours is the assumption that 2BB/100 = 1BB/hr (50 hands per hour). He's making the assumption that 2BB/100 = 1.3 BB/hr (65 hands per hour). Also, that multiplication that he shows is incorrect, 1.3*4*4*35 = $686. (I'm guessing he either typoed a 1.4 here or typoed a 1.4 on his calculator, because that would work perfectly.)However, both ways of computing the weekly rate based off of these assumptions is valid.As far as the assumptions themselves, whether 2 BB/100 = 1 BB/hr or 2 BB/100 = 1.3 BB/hr probably depends on the type of game being played, how many players, etc. I play the $0.25/$0.50 limit at Stars and am averaging about 55 hands per hour (2 BB/100 = 1.1 BB/hr) at relatively full tables (I leave once it gets down to six-handed unless it's wildly profitable).
Well then lets just use his hourly rate, which is 1.3 BB/hour. does this not mean 1.3 x 4, which equals 5.20. So 35 hours of play gets you only 182 for the week.Or we can just use his hands per hour rate of 65. Over a 35 hour week this would be 2275 hands. If we make 2bb/100 hands, again we are at $8 /100. Divide 2275 by 100, we get 22.75, multiply by 8 and we get 182 again. So these numbers must be per table, as 182 times 4 = 728, and not an average, as I understand BB/100 to mean, because there is a huge difference. If you can make 728 consistently over the course of 2275 hands playing 2/4 then how many bb/100 are you making? Not 2BB/100, but 8 BB/100. How many tables you play is irrelevent, unless again you are stating your BB/100 per table. Then it make a difference how many tables since 4 tabling 2/4 the big bet is now a factor of the BB * number of tables and this would now make the BB = to 16. So if our BB becomes 16 then yes we now have a 2BB/100 rate.I use PokerTracker so my understanding of BB/100 comes from there, and there it is an average, not a per table number.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your more recent interpretation, which is different than the two issued earlier. I had admittedly overlooked that all the earlier numbers were given in BB/100 per table, and the underlying assumption made that increasing the number of tables increasing the number of BB/100 earned (when in reality, if anything, it might decrease it).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...