theory on mass tabling to improve your game

[koboosh]

I know there are some dissenting views regarding this. They are as follows.

1. Play less tables and concentrate on developing reads.
2. Play tons of tables to get in lots of hands and review them.

#2 is said to be problematic because you miss out on thinking about many of the smaller pots and you develop bad habits.

Now my issue with one is even after having played about 300k hands of poker I'll still get into a lot of difficult situations with AK,AQ,JJ and other very strong hands. During my standard sessions I might mark 10 or so hands and they each take me up to 1 hour to review if I'm thinking a lot / practicing EV calcs etc. I think it's just a waste of time for me to work on developing new ideas for playing 64s in a marginal spot when I find out I don't know how to play it.

Now what I'm thinking about doing is as follows
(keep in mind this probably only applies to micro-stakes / small stakes players).

Play like 10 or so tables with a very tight VPIP/PFR only playing the essential hands. I haven't worked out how tight I'll play yet. This gives me a chance to review alot of pots and they'll all be with the most important hands in hold'em. Once the "spots" that come up for review dry up I can drop tables and expand VPIP, or keep tables and expand VPIP.

At some point I'll need to drop tables to start building reads etc but for micro stakes I think it is okay as you can just get away with playing your own cards.

Thoughts?

[JamesMa]

I think both ways will improve your game.

Im not sure why you want to play a very tight vpip/pfr to review pots when you can sort to premium hands through a program like HEM or PT and analyze that way

[koboosh]

Well it means I can get in more hands and get into more 'spots' with those premium hands..

[RikaKazak]

Originally Posted by koboosh

Well it means I can get in more hands and get into more 'spots' with those premium hands..

But people will play you differently because you have a tight image.

Both ways of playing will get you better, and I do both for improving. I just think "concentrating" on maximizing your EV > risking developing bad habits by mass tabling.

[robbyd86]

Originally Posted by RikaKazak

I just think "concentrating" on maximizing your EV > risking developing bad habits by mass tabling.

100% agree

[guitarizt]

I'm pretty torn on this right now for 50nl and lower. I feel like playing straight forward abc is best most the time since players either have fundamental mistakes I would capitalize on by playing this way anyways, or players leave so fast that I'm not able to really figure them out in time to take advantage of playing less tables. I am able to much more accurately put people on individual ranges and tendencies when I play 4 or less tables. It's easier to stay in the game flow and understand spots where players are spazzing out or not ever bluffing.

On the other hand I like the idea of playing a lot of tables and playing against the player pool so to speak. Playing an abc 20/18 games is so easy and you can take standard lines against the loose passives, tags, ect. You can get a ton of hands in so you can have a bigger sample size in hm or pt to review things like how often you're getting 3-bet by position, check raised on the flop, and how often your c-bets are working. Obviously this won't make you as good at poker as 4 tabling, but a large part of your winnings are going to come from premiums anyways. As long as you can look somewhat taggy and not like a total nit then mass tabling can't be that bad right?

Of course the easy answer is to do both. I really like 4 tabling, but at the same time variance is so gross that I just want to play 6+ hours a day on autopilot with a lot of tables so I can get a decent sample of hands to review.

Actually just writing that last sentence out, I think I now realize why I need to 4 table. Players play too differently to be able to take standard lines even going by vpip/pfr and fold to c-bet. If I'm reviewing hands in hem I'm going to have a hard time knowing what to do in certain situations and going by what's correct against say most 40/5/1 type players in the player pool won't tell me near as much as if I just 4 table and then start seeing what these types of players show up with. I then don't need a million hand database with filtered pots against these types of players. It's easier to try to get into their heads 4 tabling too. Throughout the past year, mostly because of rush, I was playing poker with the mass tabling mindset. I did learn a lot from this, but I think it's much better to 4 table first and I've gone back to this.

[grogheadflow]

Although variance is huge, I've found that if you are good at poker and 4 table with extreme concentration, respect for your opponents and a clear head, then your variance over any ~3k hand sample is simply the difference between winning small and winning big.

[guitarizt]

Originally Posted by grogheadflow

Although variance is huge, I've found that if you are good at poker and 4 table with extreme concentration, respect for your opponents and a clear head, then your variance over any ~3k hand sample is simply the difference between winning small and winning big.

This has been so true for me this month. I thought I could go back to 8 tabling and I immediately had a 5bi downswing which is the biggest I've had this month. I felt like I was playing super sub-optimally besides. It always felt like people were messing around with me and I just keep folding. I don't know exactly what I'm doing differently 4 tabling but I am more certain that my downswings were from variance when I 4 table, and the massive downswings always seem to happen when I mass table. I do catch on to the players who play really weird when I 4 table and maybe it's just the really little thing that add up and make a difference.