I've noticed I play a whole lot better when I play only 4 SNG tables as opposed to 8-12+. Is it possible to match the money you make from a higher volume of games by playing more skillfully with less games? Or are you forced to dumb it down with 12 tables?

I have this problem too when I play 20+, atm I lowered it to 15 and found its much better but I think it has to do with my setup (table layout, this annoying mouse problem I need to fix and little other things I can fix w/ a little time and effort)

It comes down to ROI vs Hourly rly, I would try to find a balance btwn the two and then add tables a little at a time.

I think it depends on the stakes your playing, if your playing under $10 SNGs then you might want to up the volume rather then play 4 tables optimally. Reason is simple, more fish make more stupid mistakes that the volume just outweighs playing 4 tables skillfully.

If your playing higher just play at a level you thin your comfortable at and then add 1 table at a time until you feel comfortable playing that amount of tables

If it's a dramatic enough difference that you're making the same amount of money with, say, half the tables, you're either playing way more tables than you can handle, or have an ROI that is already pretty low (ie, practically break-even to start with) so it's hard to affect much.

Of course you can improve your ROI (that is, make more per game) by playing less and focusing more. The whole reason people multi-table in the first place is to improve their hourly, so if it's not improving then you're Doing It Wrong.

Basically what IamPro said, don't just mass multitable for the heck of it, only add tables when you're comfortable/successful where you're already at. Be aware of what affects your play and by how much. If you feel like you're "rushed" making decisions, or playing only on autopilot and not the players at all, it should really only be worth it if your opponents are so, so bad that you feel you're burning money any time you don't start a new game with them. And you have the results to back up this feeling.

you will also get better playing less tables as you wont pass up plus situations and you get to learn the play of the hands better. although you may make less money per hour. you also will be less likely to go broke playing at your highest skill level.

its a bell curve, you could make more money playing 1 table than if you played 40, just gotta find your peak

depends on the game aswell, you can play more turbos/hyperturbos at once as decisions become mathematical and less streets of play to consider due to decreased stack size,rather than meta more often

^^
not true, u prob make more in RB playing 40 then profit playing 1 table assuming u are atleast 1% ROI winner playing 40 and not like a 50-70% ROI winner playing 1 table (not like thats possible).

Just look at Boku, he only has like a 5% ROI but plays a ton at a time so his hourly is ridic

Hell u could have a neg ROI and make money lol

...

Edit: basically my point is is that there is a breakeven point regarding number of tables, for some that is 0 tables, and if you go past t hat number you will progressively make less money into the - realm

also in my example the breakeven point including rakeback is obviously 39 tables for that hypothetical person

This.

I don't think you should be happy playing the lower limits.
Sacrifice money now to get better! You will not regret it when your grinding out at the much higher levels in a year or so.

Why settle with going on autopilot, making $10 an hour for ever and not becoming better, when you can make $5 an hour for a month and move up limits and increase your profits with lets say 20%+ every month or so?

exactly and that is why you have to get better and fast if you can. so playing less tables and learning the game is the way to go if your plan is to move up and not grind small forever.

I'm curious how many tables do you play?

i play high stakes so for me it is one when i play live and one to four otherwise.

^

you know I always thought more tables would be better for learning but again its a bell curve with a peak I think. You'd learn more playing 2 tables than 1 for instance....

It always depends on what you're learning and what kind of person you are.(How quick you are able to digest information etc).

When working on learning A, 4 tables is ideal for you, but 2 tables is ideal for me.
When working on improving B, 1 table is ideal you you, but 3 tables is ideal for me.
Playing only 1 table is wasting money(imo) unless you're working on something you'v never worked on before. For example working on hand reading and taking notes.

As a general rule i would say that less is more.

This is a good thread, I definately think poker is more enjoyable playing less tables.

multitable botting must be pretty soul destroying after a while, if you could play 1 - 4 tables, but concentrate on getting excellent reads, which could hugely increas your winrate, I think that'd be a much better way to go.

Even if it meant you was only say half as effective from a roi point of view, i think it would still be preferable to playing loads of tables and just becoming a robot.

I think one of the most enjoyable aspects of poker is the way it's a battle of wits. If you are able to focus on the action of every play at the table exclusively and pick up patterns that you'd miss 12+ tabling, I'm sure the difference to your winrate would go quite along way to compensating your volume.

iws, that is my way of thinking as well. you have to enjoy your life and what you do. if you can have it both ways that is the best. i liken at least to me, playing too many tables is like working in a factory assembly line. although i have never or would do that.

Very interesting perspectives. I have to say I was really expecting people to say "Of course you need to 12 table noob! What are you stupid? Don't you want to win more money?". But now I think I might just stick to 4 tabling for the benefits of being able to focus more, increase my skills, and not be a robot.

I have to ask though just to make sure, you guys do mean this in regards to SNG tourneys, too right, and not just cash games?

Yes, it goes for every type of poker.

Good luck!

Well the last two days I've been playing 4 SNG tables, and I'm reminded about the high variance in donkaments. You can run in a downward trend for a really long time in the best of conditions. Now, given that you're only playing a small number of tables, this variance is more sensible-you really see and feel it more severely. Doesn't this make a good case for playing more tables because of tilt issues?

Since by playing twice as many tables, you overcome trends in variance twice as fast? (or even faster).

I'm finding it hard to tolerate the effectively time-lengthened downward swings generated by playing less tables. The benefit of playing better doesn't make me feel better when I'm in a downward trend in which my aces get cracked, etc. I just feel like I'm wasting my time playing at all "Because I'll never get out of this downward spiral of constant suck outs."

Playing fewer tables does allow you to get better reads and make better decisions. There is a guy on Stars who just 3-4tables high stakes sngs ($300 or higher buyins) and is SNE. Probably more enjoyable then running 30 sngs at once.

Interesting. It is true that more tables would decrease the short term varience, however the real solution to this problem is becoming completely detached from your short term results, which should be the goal of every aspiring poker player. The short statement does no justice to the difficulty of the challenge, but once conquered you will be well on the path to playing an excellent game.

I'm starting to wonder how you guys do it....just sit there for 8 hours getting nothing but suck outs, and don't go crazy. And when I think about this happening 5 days in a row or more potentially...how soul crushing. I start to question whether I can do it.

single table? I wonder if he's TAG or employs some special LAGy strategy.