I have 2 monitors that are 24' and 1920 x 1200 resolution. So without resizing tables and it being default size as in stars, partypoker, 888 etc... you can basically put 4 tables on each monitor without overlap. So you could have 8 tables on 2 monitors. When i have more tables... say 12 tables or 16 tables... well those tables are going to be right behind one of those 8 tables you see on the screen. Thus when action is on one of those tables, it pops up over the one i'm seeing. Even when i used one monitor, i prefer this.



I assume most ppl prefer to see all the action throughout all the tables and tile right when having many tables? The way i do is i was told is sort of a mix between stacking and tiling when i asked this in the forum. I know there is that cascade where you see one table and next table need action, it pops up to you and then you act but again, you don't see all the action. Thus i like to have at least 8 tables showing where i see all the action when cards are dealt etc.



I have tried tiling 6 tables on each of my monitors so i could get 12 tables on both monitors total but it didn't felt comfortable. The issue is when its resized by tiling it, i find the table a bit too small for me. I mean its not that bad, but im not comfortable with resizing any table. I read that some ppl use monitors that are 27' or 28' or 32' and even 40' that has 3840 x 2160 resolution. I also read some ppl use 4k monitor to play more tables.



Can someone tell me with a 3840 x 2160 resolution monitor, how many tables can you have where there is zero overlap assuming you do not change size of the tables? I am assuming this number is 6? Now what if its a 4k monitor? Could you put 8? I definitely would prefer to have 6 tables on each monitor so at least 12 tables visible. I know i could do this by getting another 24' monitor but i think i need need graphic card or other equipment and having to look through all 3 monitors seems way too much. I always consider 2 monitors to be perfect. I connect my laptop to both of my monitors now by hdmi and thunderbolt. I don't use any of those docks and never used those ever but i read that is needed if like doing 3 monitors or even 2 for some people.

But related to this, can someone explain how i hear people say they 12 or 15 or even 24 table on a 4k monitor? That is insane because they going to resize the tables a lot right? I can't imagine even doing this on one 40' because aren't the tables going to be ridiculously small? I know resolution is more important than screen size. So wouldn't that mean a 32' vs 27' monitor with 3840 x 2160 resolution is basically the same when it comes to tables?



Also I read someone said having a 32' 3840 x 2160 monitor feels weird when you are web browsing and said 24' are perfect for that. I always find web browsing with chrome very comfortable with my 2 24' monitors. Is there any truth to that with web browsing?



Thanks.

If you're good enough at poker to play eight (or more) tables, then you're good enough at maths to do the calculations of how many tables can fit on a monitor given the table and monitor size. Think of this as a hurdle to protect bad mathematicians from playing too many tables.

Obviously this is an issue of personal preference. I've been using a 2560x1600 monitor for ~12 years now, it has been great that whole time (and it still is - my Dell 3007 is still going strong after all these years!)

People resize. For a long long time back in the day I tiled 12 tables on each 1920x1080.

Im not sure on the math on this which is why i ask. Thus i want to look at how many tables can be opened without resizing on a monitor with the 3840x2160 resolution. Thus, it should be same whether 27' or 32' or 40' right? What about 4k?



Thunderbolts... i have a tough time looking at tables resized. The first issue is tables look smaller... second issue is my hud stats would look really bad on the tables where its hard to look... the other issue is the cards once the table is below a certain size just looks unbearable to look at. Again, i tiled 6 tables on my 24' 1920x1200 monitor and did not felt comfortable. I want the table to be default size as any smaller, i have trouble looking at it and not comfortable. Its like how ppl would 24 table by stacking or cascading. I never liked that because even though it shows one table with the action on you, u don't see exactly whats going on with all the other tables. I prefer to see all the action throughout most of my tables. So now, i can see 8 tables max with 2 monitors. If i could see 12 or even 16 tables, that would be even better. But i don't want to do this with my 2 monitors because 6 or 8 tables would make tables way too small for me to look at.

3840 x 2160 is 4k. 3840 x 2160 is double the size of 1920 x 1080 so you should be able to fit twice as many on a 4k monitor as you could on your 1080 monitor. In actuality, for me on my 43" 4k (3840x2160) Samsung TV I use for my main work display, I can fit 12 with no overlap.




Here is the full size screenshot I took. Viewing this image on your 24" monitor is not going to do it justice since my display is double the resolution, and nearly double the diagonal inches, as your monitors.

I don't think this is right.

3840x2160 (4k) is twice as high as 1920x1080 (1080p), and twice as wide as 1080p.

Therefore, there are 4 pixels on 4k for every 1 pixel on 1080p.

So, I think it is more accurate to say that 4k is four-times bigger than 1080p, not double.

Yeah, u are obviously right. I was just doing the dummy math of 1920 x 2 = 3840, and 1080 x 2 = 2160.

Amazing how much of my advanced high school math I forgot over the past 3 decades.

I am still kicking myself for not trying a 4k TV as a computer display sooner. It beats the heck out of my old dual 27" 2560x1440 setup, though I still kept one of the 27's setup on the side in portrait mode for overflow space and to be able to easily access the PC side of things when I am using the TV apps for Hulu, Netflix, Youtube, etc.

I'm going to do something similar shortly: I bought a 4k TV the other day, it is arriving tomorrow, and I'm excited about the upgrade it represents.

I'm going to rotate my trusty twelve-year old Dell 3007 monitor to portrait orientation next to it.

I actually setup both my old 27" dells at first but hardly ever used both portrait monitors so I took the one off the right side to make more room for misc stuff and moved back it the far back edge of my desk bridge to use as a an extra monitor for those rare times I use my laptop at home.



The 43" TV is more total pixels/space than the 2 x 27" 1440p displays were in total. The one portrait monitor I still have connected mostly gets used for Slack and the 5pm time tracking widget when working. I run FF (for pinned work tabs) and Chrome (for Youtube, Google Play Music, etc) side by side on the main display with plenty of room for HM3 and poker clients when I need to test reported bugs, etc.

Hey guys thanks for the responses and pictures. Appreciate it. I had no idea 3840 x 2160 was 4k.



So that picture you took fozzy... 12 tables on your 43' 3840 x 2160, those are 12 stars tables where you did not do ANY TABLE RESIZING... IS THAT CORRECT? Or is it you opened 12 tables, then clicked tile tables? If not so, im shocked at this because that would be a ton of tables on one monitor without resizing. I thought with 3840 x 2160, you could put 6 stars tables without overlap without resizing stars tables. But if its a 27' or 28' or 32' monitor that is 3840 x 2160, does the same apply or not?


As you know, i mentioned my 24' monitor with 1920x1200 resolution, each monitor can do 4 tables without overlap assuming you don't resize any tables. So if i get 2 monitors that are 27' or 28' with 3840 x 2160 resolution, how many stars tables can i have on a monitor without resizing the stars tables? I always thought its 6... but its 12?

I did not resize those tables. I have my windows DPI Scaling set to 100% and was able to fit 12 default size stars tables.

I have never owned a 4k monitor before this 43" I have so I have no idea what it would be like to try and play 12 default size stars tables on only 27". If you had a 27" 4k monitor and set your DPI Scaling to 100% you should also be able to fit 12 tables, but those 12 tables are going to be a lot smaller (in actual visual/inches) size than what you are used to with 4 tables on a 24". You are fitting 3 times as many tables in only 3 more diagonal inches so the tables are going to look smaller, even though they are higher definition due to the increased number of pixels per inch.

I tested some 4k 15" laptops at best buy when shopping for my new laptop last summer and their default/recommended DPI Scaling was 350%. I turned it down to 100% and everything was so small that it was hard to read. I could only tolerate 200% DPI Scaling for working so I went with a 1080p as I didn't really see the point of buying a 4k monitor only scale up the DPI (Dots per Inch) to 200% and effectively reduce it back down to only 1080 pixels of usable space.

I doubt any store would want/let you install Stars.com to test, but I would suggest you go to a store and test some 27" 4k monitors on other multi-tasking things (browsers, etc) you do regularly on your monitors and see how it looks at 100% DPI scaling vs 200%, etc. I personally don't think I could use 100% Windows DPI Scaling on a 4k monitor much smaller than the 43" TV I bought, but as I said I have only ever tested 4k on 15" laptops and this 43" TV I own.

For reference: My 2 x Dell 27" 2560x1440 monitors I bought 5+ years ago when they were on sale for 50% of MSRP and they cost me $600 each. The 43" TV I bought last November cost me $325 and I can fit more tables/things on this one 43" TV than I could both of my old 27" combined.

My new setup:

I feel like a 55" computer screen might be a bit big. That's a 30" monitor set up in portrait on the side.

I have 100% DPI scaling, and that seems to be right for me sitting at the desk. I think that DPI scaling is useful if you are further away from the screen.

Yeah, I could see a 55 being a bit too much for sitting at the desk. I am glad you mentioned it. I do most of my TV watching in my office with the same 43" using the TV Apps and just push back away from the desk a few feet and recline in the office chair so I had thought a bigger one might be better for that, but it sounds like it would be a mixed bag.

I have been using a Samsung Galaxy A tab laying in bed if I want to watch a bit of TV b4 bed, that I bought before this TV for like $200, and once I got this 43" TV for barely a $100 more I started thinking about moving this 43" TV to the bedroom and getting a new (possibly) bigger one for the desk. It sounds like I should get a 55 for the bedroom instead.

fozzy71,

Yes, I agree with that. At some stage, I plan to move my office around and put the 55" tv on wheels or something similar. Mind you, sitting relatively close, it is as if I'm in a huge cinema with a giant TV - everything is bigger when you're closer to it.

Okay so the 55' tv as a monitor... that seems way too much.


I mean wouldn't the biggest monitor setup for playing many tables probably be a 32' max? Like having 2 of them?


I like to know how many tables a monitor with 3840x2160 can do where the moment you tile them, the size is same size like on a 24' 1920x1200. So with a 24' you can do 4 tables no overlap and no tables resized. And you can clearly see the cards and everything default size. So with a 27' or 28' 3840x2160, shouldn't the amount of tables be 6? What if its a 32' with same resolution?



Fozzy to confirm, that pic you posted with a 43' and 4k display of 3840x2160 and you saying you can fit 12 table without overlap, the size of the tables did get smaller though right? I also don't know how some ppl play so many tables while tiled and tables being much smaller. I have to assume its not easy to look at and very uncomfortable right? Again 6 tabling on my 24' tiled, i don't like the tables that small.

It depends. This is up to your personal preference.

This applies to you:

The resizing is a function of resolution. A 19' screen which has 4k resolution has the same resizing as a 85' screen which has 4k resolution.

No, they did not get smaller. I opened 12 tables at default size and manually dragged them into position on the 43" TV. I did not use the Stars 'Tile' option because it was forcing them to tile smaller on my '#1' monitor which is the 27" 2560x1440 in portrait mode.

Pauly, the point I think you're missing, which Fozzy explained in an earlier post, is that while a normal sized Stars table on your current monitor will be the same number of pixels on a new monitor (whether 4k or otherwise) it may be a different physical size in front of your eyes.

If the latter is what you're really worried about here then you need three bits of information: calculate the size of a standard Stars table in pixels; know the number of pixels in each direction on the screen you're thinking about (i.e. its resolution, as modified by any DPI scaling); and know the physical dimension of that same screen in inches or whatever. From this you can work out how "big" each table will be in front of you.

For the sake of simplicity let's assume that a Stars table is 1920x1080 pixels (it's not, obviously). On a 23" monitor displaying a resolution of 1920x1080 that single table would have a 23" diagonal and sides of 20.08"x11.42". On a 42" screen the same pixels would measure a real-world 36.51"x20.47".

Stars tables used to be 800x570 pixels. I think this has changed. But to give you a flavour of the difference between screen sizes keeping constant resolution and constant distance from your eyes, an 800x570 table on a 23" monitor will be the same "real world" size as 440x313 pixels on the 42" screen (so you might conclude you can get away with tables at that reduced size, and thus more tiled on the screen). But then you have to think about whether you can work with this at that resolution: as Fozzy said, playing around with DPI scaling on a monitor you're interested in might help.

Pauly i had better size and resolution monitors than you 10+ years ago just buy something decent instead of starting dozens of threads about it. Anything 2560x1440+ and 27 inch+ will suit your purposes.

The last 5 years i have had a 3840x2160 40 inch monitor and i never play more than 12 tables so that was perfect. I can fit 12 large tables on the screen even bigger than standard size. Personally think one large monitor is better for your eyes and neck than 2 smaller ones.

I always thought being close up to a tv fried your eyes?

You can now use a tv as your monitor? Where have I been lol.

lol, why/how would it do that?

Back in the day as a kid they told you not to stand so close to the TV :P

I've been pondering whether one big monitor would be better than say 3 or 4 24inch monitors for multi tasking/extra real estate. Thats why i came to check this thread out.

If you just want desktop space, then multiple, smaller, monitors will probably give you more screen real estate at a cheaper price than one big monitor/screen.

ushoveicall, with your 40' 3840x2160 you are saying you can fit 12 tables on your screen at bigger than the standard stars table size compared to a 24' 1920x1200? That seems amazing. But would the same apply if that monitor is 32' or 27 or 28'?


Now what if you get say 2 monitors of 27' or 32' and put them side by side. You can basically put minimum 9 tables on each monitor... where the size of the table is similar to like how a table size looks on a stars table on a 24' 1920x1200? Because the way i have it set up, i can only get 4 tables on each monitor and thus get 8 total. Then behind each table... is more tables behind it. The most extreme thing i can do is tile 6 tables on each monitor where the size isn't that bad but still i just dont like it when table is smaller.