Would you be happier if you play cash table that accept only one table player?
Only logged-in members can vote!
→ Click here to create a Mob account which gives you access to our forum and all our free bankrolls (no deposit bonuses) → Log in to existing account!
Joined: Jan '10
Location: Romania
Age: 49 (M)
Posts: 54
Would you be happier if you play cash table that accept only one table player? Would you like to play a cash table that dont accept multitable players. Why the developers of poker rooms dont make such tables? I think the game will never be so boring like it is now when you cant get any money from the nits. Im sure that the poker rooms disadvantage the players that rake so little.Let the nits multitable player to play against each other and let the players that play for fun and want to play not for money to have the hype and trill of playing the real game how it should be . JUST ONE TABLE. without the regulars. I notice that when you have a cash table where you can find players that play only one table the average pot is way higher. So the play is more loose and the more chanse you have to make money if you are a skillful player. When you play the regulars is like you playing agains machines.
Joined: Feb '08
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 35 (M)
Posts: 1886
I usually like to multi-table if I'm not watching TV or doing something else the same time. I find playing one table at a time can be boring so I usually play two or three. But I don't think I play any less hands at a single table or play tighter. I appreciate that people who multitable 10 or more tables will have a tighter range but then have you considered they might just be nits anyway and that because they are tight they can multitable without changing their game.
In any case there is no way that any poker room will create such tables. They want to encourage more multi-tabling not less and I think that most online players want to multitable. And the reason you may see a correlation between tables with one table players and more loose and aggressive play is because they tend to be noobs. Inexperienced players are more likely to play one table at a time and be over aggressive, over valuing their small pairs. It doesn't make for a more exciting game, just more swings.
That's my opinion for now. May be I can be convinced differently.
Joined: Jan '10
Location: Romania
Age: 49 (M)
Posts: 54
I playde more table my self(6) but when you find that you have KK and loose 3 times with against AA in 1 hour thats not the best way to win money. For example you have a table with 6 regulars. Who will win? The one who is most set to play only AA and KK and get allin with AK preflop? So if i have poket pair like QQ and have raised befor flop and get 3beted i must fold? Or pray to poker good not to get hit by KK or AA? Poker usualy is more fun when you mix the game and the other player never know what kind of hand you play or when you bluf. 95 % ofthe time when i had monster hands like AA an kk never got any money becaus all the players foldet befor me preflop. Oh i know that all the nits wayt for the visitors (one player table) to get in to action at the table. But these days this players are fewer and fewer. Soon the poker will be resumed at only 8 cards AA KK QQ and AK. I have friend that was a NIT multitable playerfor about 5 yers and now is not playing anymore multitable becaus is not more profitable for him . The reson? Becaus the reson i explained before. TO MANY REGULARS.
What u consider boring is a matter of opinion. I much prefer playing 4-6 tables because its much easier to fold marginal hands and maximize your stronger hands. Just because u play more than 1 table doesn't qualify u as a nit. I see lots of multitabling players that are wild, loose, calling station, donkeys,gamblers etc.
Joined: Nov '09
Location: Canada
Age: 55 (M)
Posts: 2387
I multitable but if you can't/prefer not to, it does let you really observe the other players at the table and make better reads on them, and potentially make the nits fold better hands than you. But really, it is not in the poker site's interest to limit the amount of tables a player can play, so not gonna happen. For a moment I thought of suggesting that you play on a really small site, where they might only have one table going at the level you want to play, but I multitable at different levels and sometimes with a couple of different sites simultaneously - so forget that. If this doesn't work for you stick to playing live.
Joined: Aug '10
Location: Germany
Age: 52 (M)
Posts: 2219
The most multitable player playing abc poker. So its easy for a single table player to get reads. The real problem are the tracking softwares. Without them the most multitabler playing-ev.
Joined: Nov '08
Location: Germany
Age: 47 (M)
Posts: 134
Posted by DaCapo71: The most multitable player playing abc poker. So its easy for a single table player to get reads. The real problem are the tracking softwares. Without them the most multitabler playing-ev.
I totally aggree with you that if you play 1 table your read is stronger. And you have the chance to bluff more. You also have the chance to find out who is the fish at the table and can consentrate on him. Also playing each hand accordingly to who your opponent is. I often start with 1 or 2 and once I know the players I open another and another.
Joined: Feb '11
Location: Canada
Age: 39 (M)
Posts: 1660
Hey EdyHoldem, I agree with above that you'll likely never see most sites take that idea on, there's no incentive for them. But you should try Terminal Poker (There may still be an NDP here). It's rush poker exclusively so there should be lots of single table action there.
Joined: May '08
Location: Lithuania
Age: 39 (M)
Posts: 10090
dude if you really want to get some decent one table action you should go for pkr- they are the closest thing to one table poker imo- of course since they launched the lite version game changed a bit- but still they are the closest thing to one table action you can get online...in general i do not have anything against multitabling, it has its pros and cons
Joined: Mar '09
Location: Greece
Age: 47 (F)
Posts: 14136
You can find all sorts of pots in tables with players multitabling. The only thing that drives me mad is when some players play too many freaking tables and they have to play in the last second every single time cause of that. Now if you have 3 or 4 players in your table like that you play like 4 hands in an hour. That is something that they should take care somehow but i find it rather difficult.
Joined: Jun '11
Location: Romania
Age: 41 (F)
Posts: 8
You have to play differently against mass-tabler nits and 1 tabler players,so if u can adjust your style to anyone,there wouldnt be a problem to get money from each of theese type of players.Tho i def dont see the logic,in some cases,to be a proven losing player,but you still 24 table 2NL,where u cant beat even the rake
Joined: Feb '11
Location: Canada
Age: 39 (M)
Posts: 1660
It's funny how you put that Chartoule. On the one hand it should be +EV because you can pay closer attention to the game and make better decisions (Increasing ROI). But because you end up playing less you don't win as much. I guess every player has a delicate balance between the two.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Portugal
Age: 44 (M)
Posts: 4827
I don’t agree with you at all. Weekend players will play bad either against one table players or regulars/multitable players. Creating prohibitions is going against the main objective of the poker room, which is to have maximum profits, which means having the maximum number of players in the maximum number of rooms, and if one players feels confident enough to play in more that one room at the same time, that is good for the room, which earns more and faster, and it’s also good for the player, increasing possibilities of winning and generating more and faster rake, which can mean more rakeback to him in rooms with that kind of promo. For those who don’t know how to play and just want to have fun without losing money, they have fun poker, impossible to lose money there!
Joined: May '09
Location: Spain
Age: 49 (M)
Posts: 1331
Posted by Arithmajik: It's funny how you put that Chartoule. On the one hand it should be +EV because you can pay closer attention to the game and make better decisions (Increasing ROI). But because you end up playing less you don't win as much. I guess every player has a delicate balance between the two.
I think you can put the same attetion to one table as, for example, 4 tables (more tables as more experience you have). Maybe some exceptions in sites with software that literally works against the player.
Joined: Mar '09
Location: Greece
Age: 47 (F)
Posts: 14136
If you dont rush your moves to change from table to table and you have a few seconds spare to think about your move then you are fine. If you just click to change table and then click your move and then up to another table, you play too many tables
Joined: Oct '08
Location: Germany
Age: 49 (M)
Posts: 2025
weird thread.. i like to multitable and in case the pokerrooms really decide to allow only one table per player, which will never happen, then i just open up 10 different pokerclients - at end its the same. you have a big advantage if you only play one table. i think i do even make more money if i only play one table, but i quickly get bored..
Joined: Jun '09
Location: Sweden
Age: 57 (M)
Posts: 1
Apparantly, most people responding here MT themself. Hardly surprising really considering what BRM is mostly about. But if the quiet people mostly prefer MT I really don't know. If so, and if that majority believe that MT is profitable for them all in particular, then it simply doesn't add up. The majority of all players, MT or not, lose money. Playing more tables = Losing more consistenly.
Besides, it is pretty exciting to go way up in limits than multitabling.
