DCalZone made a great point.

Most of the gamblor-type tournament players will sit down at a cash game way over their skill level if they hit a big tourney score - this stuff keeps feeding the pool. This also has an effect on the smaller cash games. If I deposited $50 and made a $2 final table and won like $200, I might go try and play 50 or 100 NL, etc.

To reach SNE at 1/2 limit 16-tabling you would need to play something around 9 hours/day for about 330 days. And trust me, that would be as sick as it gets.

I've tried 20-tabling a couple of times and it's mind blowing. Thinking about 24-tabling limit gives me the chills.

1/2 limit is roughly in the 0.4VPP/hd range. Maybe even slightly lower than that which would mean a bit more than 2.5 million hands actually.
1/2 NL maybe is in the .45-.5VPP/hd range.

So very roughly similar there.

But making it to Elite at either is quite the grind.
And making it to elite at 1/2 limit with more button-clicks and decisions probably has to be tougher.


Lets call it 50k hands a week * 50-52 weeks at 1/2 limit.
I'm going to guess hands per table-hour in the 65 range. Although your own presence on so many tables may slow them down a bit more.

Anyway, 20 tables * 65 hds = 1300.
Probably round-down to 1200 because of the time required to get into games, tables breaking on you, etc.
If you are going to try to get 20 tables going you are going to spend a good deal of that time playing only 17-19 tables.

So 1200 an hour realistically perhaps. And to get 50k a wk you need 41.67 hours.

And this is being perhaps generous with some of the numbers.
If you play super-tight just because it's all going too fast and you just want to get more hands in then you might bring down the VPP/hd number. Perhaps to 0.37 or 0.38 or so.

I would more realistically guesstimate that a 1/2 limit 20-tabler MIGHT be able to do this playing 45+ hours a week.
If my numbers are off and you could do it in less hours than that then more power to ya.

Haven't looked at his theory but I suspect that vuuchu's idea of 16-tabling for 9 hours a day assumes roughly the same calculations as my idea of 20 tabling for 45 hours per week.
We're both in the same ballpark anyway.
It's definitely not as easy as some want to think it is who may be using some optimistic approximations for VPP/hr.

I think that most of us on this planet already know that 16-20 tabling 1/2 limit for that many hours would be anything but 'easy'.

I dont think he was saying "Its easy to do" I think he's saying "its easily possible" or in a more clear form "Its definitely possible by a fair margin" or something along those lines at least.

YO IM GONNA 24 TABLE THE HIGHEST 6MAX LIMIT GAMES AND GET ELITE IN LIKE 3 WEEKS

BUT UR NOT AZN.

FYP

yes i am (half, but **** it that counts)

I was refering to 6max, my bad. I suppose it's possible at the lower limits, but I'm pretty sure even marchinvest2 doesn't ever 12 table 10/20+. Right now he is playing 3 FR and 3 6max, which makes VPPs at a slower rate than my table mix. FYP.

If it's just 6-max then I think dbeckham at 3/6 does up to 12 tables sometimes.

And I think sethy and absolution have both said they've done that many before although I think they don't do normally do that.

But yeah, more than 12 6-max limit games would be pretty crazy.
I know the 24-tabling thing sounds really impressive even though it's full-ring NL. But that's the thing. It just SOUNDS more impressive.

12+ tabling 6-max limit is tougher than 24-tabling full-ring NL and I don't think it's really even close.

I've done both, and this statement is 100% accurate, and I'm probably not as crappy at Limit as I am at NL.

This is very true (and obvious for those who've played both).

I've played a little bit of everything and it's definitely easier to multi-table NL than it is limit without a doubt. When I play full ring I top out at 20 tables of NL and 16 tables of limit.

FWIW, there was a regular at 1/2 full ring limit routinely playing 18+ tables basically around the clock, and I have him at -2BB/100 over 21K hands. I played like 57K hands at 1/2 FRLHE last December playing 12-16 tables and ran at ~0BB/100 to clear a bonus. Colossal waste of time. I cleared a few bonuses, though. Playing that many tables was definitely -EV for me compared to playing fewer.

I think if you'd played fewer tables when you switched back to limit earlier in this year (thread), it would have been smoother. Once you're used to playing an absurd number of NL tables, it probably feels weird to play so many fewer tables, but it can take a little time to get re-acclimated to a different game, even if you've played it a ton in the past. The game really does change.

Ok I changed my mind, I'm moving up to 1/2 NL. I such an insanely bad day at .5/1 yesterday that now is the perfect time to move up. I only played a 8k hand session and lost w/ AA/KK 35+ times and lost with over 25 sets. (only had one KK vs AA and no over sets)

That 10k FPP tournament is nothing special but it's better than nothing. It's not going to play looser than any other $150 tournament and there won't be any dead money. In fact it will play tighter than usual until you make the money. (well some tables will have some horrid players but so do all tournaments w/ 10k+ entrants.) That's where it's different, people will go bonkers once you're ITM. Most of you commenting on this tournament obviously don't do them very often. I played over 4k MTT's last year so I have a pretty good idea.

LaJune

I get about 1000 hands an hour 8 tabling 1-2 Limit at 0.39-0.40VPP/hand. I think it all just depends on how good you are at multi tabling and making quick decisions. You probably get a lot less hands an hour at regular speed tables.

Promotion idea for cash game players.

I can 10 table 6-max limit and I feel like I'm right on the limit there. 12 tabling just feels too rushed and I occasionally time out. There are just way too many decisions, no time bank and half of the tables will probably be speed tables. Also, I'm probably break even when I 10 table so I only use it when I need to clear a FPP level. I did an experiment at micro levels to see what the absolute max I could play was and it was around 16. I couldn't open any more tables at that point because I didn't even have time to click on the task bar and search the list. I suppose you could set up 24 tables and then sit in all at the same time, but good luck with that about 2 minutes in.

I can't handle more than 9 tables of 6max LHE (10/20 +). I usually run 7, or 4-5 if one of them is a heads up table.

longest stretch - 11 hrs
average stretch - 4-5 hrs

get burned out quick.. i have been traveling alot since the new year but now i am back and ready to roll. tomorrow i will start playing 25,000 hands per day for the next 1 1/2 months.. gl to me

25k hands in a day. impossible i say

56k vpps thus far. slowly catching up.

I think a lot of folks are missing the point here. Neither Scotty nor PokerStars have any reason to want to balance rewards of tournament players with those of cash game players. Their goal isn't to make life fair. Their goal is to make money.

The reason the freerolls are offered at specific times is to get people to log on to stars to play at that time when they otherwise might not. Then they open other tables and play, paying more rake. It's not rocket science. The $2mil 'freeroll' is great for stars because it's only $16 overlay per person and will probably attract more than that in added rake paid on the site that day... but a lot of people will feel like they've been given way more value than that because they don't consider the cash value of fpps, etc. They gain money and goodwill -- win/win.

Pokerboy's idea would probably inspire more play, but not enough to balance the fact that pokerstars would be dishing out a lot of $$ in rewards to people who were already going to play anyways. It doesn't help the site if you switch your play from hold'em to omaha.

The current VIP program at stars is outstanding. Not too long ago we were spending hundreds of thousands of fpps (without multipliers, so basically vpps) on dozens of decks of playing cards or a half-dozen copies of the same book to give to friends. There was nothing else to do with them. Now stars has the most intelligent VIP program around -- it really is a 'frequent player' reward system with incentive to play more frequently.

Be happy -- we've got it pretty good. If you can think of new programs that actually benefit Stars as well as the players, great. Unfortunately I think most (not all) suggestions come from the motivation of 'how can Stars give me more money/benefits', which just isn't going to result in anything.

The max I can handle comfortably is 8 mainly because I have 2 samsung 20"s and they are perfect for 4 on each monitor. I guess I could throw 1 in the middle of each to make 10 but that seems way too hectic to be worth it. The only limit players I have seen play 12+ are k345, Weak Tite and JTM210577, I don't know how someone could handle that many playing fast tables especially it seems like theres too much action to keep up with.

yeah I have a single 30", so after 6 there is some small overlap.

Your right about k345... but I don't think he plays very well. I thought weak tite was nl? could be wrong.