How much weight down you place on a player who's multi-tabling vs one who is not?

I've dropped $250 playing 6-max PLO25 for about a month and I seem to be running into a larger than normal number of big hands than I would expect in a 6-max game.

I'm thinking it's because most players are multi-tabling so they can play tighter vs someone such as myself who only plays one table.

Are there any edges to playing one table only?

I play two tables of Zoom, more if i'm playing regular tables. I definitely keep an eye out who's multi-tabling, for obvious reasons, like stealing pots.

I've come to the conclusion that I can't beat the 6-max game single-tabling. Too many players are playing nut hands (figuratively speaking) since they're multi-tabling. If there is too much folding the multi-tablers bail. I'm going to stick with full ring game and see how that goes.

This isn't the reason you're not beating the games. Matter of fact, you have a very straightforward comparative advantage if you're disciplined.

I'm no expert but it sounds like you just need to play a tighter range versus the multi tabling nit types. (if nits even exist in micro PLO. I'm yet to find one).

Posting hand historys would be better that way you may get some advice as to where you are going wrong : )

I dont understand your problems, i would actually love to play in a pool FULL of nits.

In winrate terms, anytime you are dealt a hand, there is 150bb/100 on the table [100x(SB+BB)]. Anytime you open raise and someone calls , he is telling you he has a range that is going to cut a piece of 150bb/100 cake for himself. And so this is why you should love to play against nits.They dont want the cake often.

so because you have less things to focus on , you are being outplayed? Maybe you need to try some 24 tabling?

You make it sounds like you are such a lag.

OP, it sounds like it has less to do with your opponents 'playing nut hands' and more that you are not good enough to win yet. There is a learning curve and a month isn't much.

If you are playing on one table your winrate should actually be higher than if you were on many, but the tradeoff is that you are playing fewer hands, and your winrate isn't higher by enough to justify the difference in volume. For example compare playing one table and winning at 4 bb/100 vs. playing four and winning at 2 bb/100. (Although if you aren't a winning player, that math doesn't work.)

I'll expand on this. Last night over a 3.5hr period I played PLO10 and ran $10 to $30 to $10. The first two hours played like a live shorthanded game. There were a lot of medium sized pots and people were winning with non-nut hands and an occasional nut hand. Basically it was what you'd expect when players are playing 1-2 tables. They have to play hands because the blinds move around fairly quickly. So after this period a crop of new ones arrived. These new players were multi-tabling (3 or more tables and playing at same tables). The winning hands completely changed to basically nut only with lots of 3/4 betting preflop and an absurd amount of squeezes. Also, the play was very slow because of the multi-tabling. For me, the variance went way up since I found myself calling at lot of 3-bets with near premium and premium hands (Broadway rundowns, Broadway with dangler and suited A, big pairs with/with out suited A) and callings raises in position with rundowns and rundowns with bottom gaps. I couldn't hit a flop and end up calling raises in late only to fold to 3 bet from blinds. For a second I thought something was wrong because a player in the BB kept 3-betting every time a player in EP open raises pot. I quit when I lost a big pot:

I (200BB) on button, called a 4 bet preflop with AAK10 (double suited) versus A9KJ (single suited). Board ran 99865 and I checked the river because I felt that the winning hand wasn't going to fold his last $4 when the pot was $17.

People don't have to play any looser when they are playing fewer tables. You can play looser, because when you have fewer tables to focus on, you can focus on marginal decisions more. But it's not like you are going to get blinded out if you play a similar VPIP/PFR.

What happened is more like this: The players at first were softer, probably more recreational. Such players often play more loosely (and badly) and at a fewer number of tables. Then the regulars arrived (who usually play more tables and better than the 1- and 2-tablers) and the game got tougher.

As I suspected earlier:

Are you saying you wouldn't call a 4 bet on button with AAK10 double suited when 200 BB deep?

I wouldn't. Wouldn't even consider calling.

Ok this is good. What hand would you call with on the button with when facing a 4-bet? AAKK or AAKJ double suited or are you thinking only 10-high and lower rundowns?

I mean there are only a couple of hands better than AAK10 double suited especially when playing 6-MAX and in position.

I'm not real sure I'm calling with anything. We are talking pot sized bets, right?


This might help:

I can't get this to embed properly, but this brief youtube clip illustrates the nuanced approach one must often take in these PLO spots. Bill Raftery's comments as to Jerome Lane's decision are quite instructive.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqSwZgpOad8

I'd 5-bet.

Good question. I'm not talking pot sized bets preflop. My failure to clarify. The 3 and 4 bet were small. Flop and turn bets were less than pot each and river checked around. I get it though. Of my many leaks not playing AAxx overly strong is one of them. It's from all those years of playing live.

I thought about that but we were very deep and I didn't want to over commit since I had position. The preflop betting wasn't huge. So it was more akin to calling a 3-bet where players pot-repot preflop. I thought there was a chance we both had AAxx and kickers were going to play. I turned a FD after calling less than pot sized bet and was able to check the river.

It's a leak from years of playing live where players try to get it all in preflop with "any 4 cards". AAxx get cracked regularly.

Deeper stacks do call for some adjustments, but such radical changes to your strategy (e.g. reraising top-3% or so at this spot 100bb -> reraising almost nothing at 200bb) are usually overdoing it. AAxx ds and other ultra-premiums (KKQJds) etc. are so strong in terms of side cards that you don't really have to worry about 'face up'-ness, as you might with rainbow AA72 or something a lot worse.

Also you should definitely try to get AA aipf against wide ranges. You do get cracked regularly, but if you do the math there you win >30 bb on average by getting a 100 bb stack in, and you aren't making that much by just calling.

Anyway, the OP makes more sense to me now.