How Many Tables To Play/hands Per Session

[vello 0]

so in an effort to ensure that I don't play poker day in and day out ive limited myself to two sessions, 120 hands each, on one six handed .05c/.10c table. i put a lot of focus into my play, keep notes of players, etc. usually, im up. but just browsing these forums i see left and right people talking about "six tables" this and "two tables" that, and i wonder, does it make sense to play just one table? is the extra focus really worth it? i dont want to sit at four tables grinding (i think thats what its called) all day--i want to legitmately play a thinking game. but is playing one table too limited (i play "fast" tables only)? whats the norm? two? more?

[Solar 0]

Most people find 1 table too boring. With only one table you spend a lot of time folding and waiting. How many you play depends on you. 2 tables is pretty easy to keep up with and play just as well. 4 tables is possible with some practice, and won't result in too much of a difference in your play. More than four, and you have to make automatic decisions, based on what you can see right away. Some people can win playing as many as a dozen tables, but its a different sort of poker.Personally I usually play 3. Sometimes 4 if I'm in the zone. 2 if I want a relaxing session.

[Dictius 0]

I think you should try playing two tables for a couple of sessions, I'd be surprised if you lost focus at all.It's different for everyone but I think you can play 4 tables and pay pretty close attention to whats going on at all the tables.

[trystero 0]

Today I realized I had like $50 on FT so I tried 10 tabling 2nl. Keeping track of the tables is amazingly hard. Granted I don't have the monitor for it, but still.edit: Fwiw I ran terribad, down $6.3 w/aa/qq/jj!!!2nl is hilarious, 653 hands of steamroll. 35/27 ftw. I love my button stat, 60/49 lol Not even 10nl is that weak/tight

[cheetaking 0]

At the .05/.10 level, two tables is definitely optimal. Because at those stakes, people are mostly stupid, and you make the most money by playing good solid tight/aggressive poker. So if you are only playing one table, you'll get bored fast waiting for good hands.However, once you step up into the dollar levels, I'm going to go against the grain and say stick with one table if that's what you're comfortable with.Personally, I have found that I win a LOT more playing one table because I have much better reads on everyone, and can focus on each and every decision with no pressure. This lets me play small-ball, which is almost never boring because of how many hands you get into, and can make you a ton of money against even highly-experienced players. I tried to play 2 tables, but I won a lot less often, and my downswings were more extreme because I wasn't able to pay full attention. I won maybe 4-6 BB/hour during the year that I insisted on playing 2 tables at once. My current win rate at one table, though, is something ridiculous like 20 BB/hour. So, yeah, it can be pretty damned effective if you have good reads on your opponents.Also note, though, that this is PokerStars I'm talking about, so other sites are likely looser, and therefore are better in tight multiples.

[Solar 0]

I find I actually play better on two tables than one. With only one table my mind wanders, I do other things, and I don't focus on the game. With a second table I don't need anything else to keep my mind occupied.

[vello 0]

ok then i figure i wont go for the super tight at ten tables approach then. one regular table is pretty slow, but i figure one fast table on pokerstars is the equivalent of two regular tables?cheetaking, what blinds are you playing at to make 20BB per hour?

[cheetaking 0]

ok then i figure i wont go for the super tight at ten tables approach then. one regular table is pretty slow, but i figure one fast table on pokerstars is the equivalent of two regular tables?cheetaking, what blinds are you playing at to make 20BB per hour?

Actually, fast tables really aren't that much faster than normal ones. It's like 60 hands/hr versus 50.And the forementioned stats were mostly at .25/.50

[strappazon 0]

Most people find 1 table too boring. With only one table you spend a lot of time folding and waiting.

And learning of lot of things about other players so you can read them. How can you get infos about others playing when you play like 6 tables at the same time?

[mtdesmoines 3]

so in an effort to ensure that I don't play poker day in and day out ive limited myself to two sessions, 120 hands each, on one six handed .05c/.10c table. i put a lot of focus into my play, keep notes of players, etc. usually, im up. but just browsing these forums i see left and right people talking about "six tables" this and "two tables" that, and i wonder, does it make sense to play just one table? is the extra focus really worth it? i dont want to sit at four tables grinding (i think thats what its called) all day--i want to legitmately play a thinking game. but is playing one table too limited (i play "fast" tables only)? whats the norm? two? more?

You can play a "thinking game" at three or four tables.It gets harder to take notes. Speed varies by players at the game.