i am starting to get a hang of 10-tabling after logging four hours (2000 hands). while at times hectic, it really isn't that bad and is pretty fun.

however, i am noticing that already i am playing far too loose for ten tables (21% VP$IP, 12% PFR). while this is easily a by-product of party's tight(er) tables (hence me raising more and playing more LAG, e.g. 42% attempt to steal), i think a lot of hands which i'm playing that are profitable, become slightly unprofitable due to ten-tabling.

this is possibly because of lack of almost any reads (i can still keep a few reads, and i'm sure this will improve over time), or maybe simply because ten-tabling inherently causes me to repeatedly make mistakes (three-betting with a flush draw heads-up oop, for example, or check/folding second pair when i'm getting 16-to-1 after a capped pot preflop, etc.).

while these mistakes may mean a lower winrate, i think that if i can develop a good ten-tabling strategy, the decreased winrate will not be able to justify stopping, because ideally, my hourly rate would be higher.

so here are some quick thoughts i've been having (all of this is preflop. my postflop game won't change that much at all, and in fact, it'll probably be considerably easier to play postflop when i tighten up significantly preflop).


- early pos... fold ATo and KJo, since i know nothing of game texture. i want to say i should fold AJo and KQo too. thoughts? i also want to fold Axs, Kxs (including KTs?), Qxs (including QJs), and all suited connectors. folding JTs and T9s utg will be hard. thoughts? so basically, no speculative hands up front except pocket pairs. so, only play AA-TT (raise), 99-22 (limp), AKs-AJs (raise), KQs (raise), ATs/KJs (limp), and AKo-AQo.

- mid/late position... i know enough to know when i should limp 87s and when i should fold it, depending on limpers, position, etc., but i'm wondering, should i drop suited connectors altogether?? how about Axs? i would still prefer to fold weak offsuit hands like ATo and KJo, but i think i can add AJo and KQo here. i will also start limping suited broadways that i would have folded up front (ATs/KJs-KTs, sometimes QJs-QTs/JTs).

- blind stealing... let's not do it. i mean, obviously i'll still open-raise ATo in the co instead of open-limping, but i think i should fold A8o on the button, KTo in the cutoff, QJo on the button, 55 in MP3, etc. thoughts?

- blind defense... let's not do it. this is much easier to justify than not blind stealing. position, no reads, rake, etc. but how about something like co opens and i have ATo in the bb? i think i fold that, but how about AJo? AQo is easy three-bet, but should i bother *ever* calling? should my stance on blind defense simply be three-bet-or-fold? i.e. if my hand isn't good enough to three-bet, fold it.

- minor adjustments: folding 99- to a raise if i can't play it for set value, three-betting TT+ to a raise. folding AJo-/KQo- to a raise, three-betting AKo-AQo (should i be folding AQo?). three-betting AKs/AQs, cold-calling AJs/KQs, folding ATs-/KJs-. thoughts? should i fold AJs/KQs instead of cold-calling?


overall, you'll see that these thoughts are leaning towards the more passive (possibly more weak/tight) side whenever the decision is close (e.g. whether to limp or raise 99 utg, i'll limp). this is because i feel that a more aggressive decision while lead to more marginal situations, and i am trying to avoid marginal situations as much as possible.

the point is, the EV of raising 99 utg can be higher than limping, but while ten-tabling, this just might not be the case, because i might make more mistakes when i raise (auto-betting the flop, having to play heads-up or short-handed without having any reads, general spewing, etc.) that are higher in magnitude than the mistake i might make when i limp (check/folding the best hand in a small pot when i don't hit my set).

so how about it? any thoughts?

thanks,
aseem

Actually, I think the primary benefit of tightening up may lie not in easier postflop decisions but fewer postflop decisions. If you drop your V$IP a few percentage points, you'll have less action going on and you'll be able to dedicate more thought to each hand.

The big money losers when not paying attention are the two or three way pots, in my opinion (basically blind stealing and defending). Big multi-way pots tend to be easier to play.

Early position: I like AJo too much to fold it but I can understand dropping KQ. Do you really think it will help that much not to play KQ in EP?

Mid/Late Position: I'd drop suited connectors below T9s but still play Axs. Playing Axs only for flush and two pair value is pretty easy and I don't think requires much nuanced thinking.

Blind stealing: I agree that blind stealing should be dropped if you're attempting to streamline your play. These hands tend to be very marginal post-flop and take more thinking time. However, I'd still play a bit looser than you mentioned, not for the purpose of stealing the blinds, but just because you're in late position and there are very few players left to act that could have better hands.

Blind defense: Looks good. Just don't do it.

Adjustments: I think three-betting AQo is usually fine. When three-bet occur PF, you'll usually find yourself going to flop with many fewer players than if everyone had just limped. Because of this, I think suitedness isn't as important.

There was an interesting article in the March Two Plus Two Internet Magazine about exactly this subject. It's not on their site anymore, but the author's name is Piers Shepperson, you might be able to track him down and get him to send you a copy.

In a nutshell, he basically said that trying to play your best poker online is -EV compared to trying to play as many hands as you can handle. Obviously, this caused quite a stir at 2+2 ... after all, extracting every last iota of EV out of every single hand is a religion to most poker players. But he made some good points.

Here are a couple of highlights, in case you don't find a copy:

"Most decisions you make at poker are obvious and you can make them automatically with little conscious thought, most of the money you make comes from these obvious decisions. As you spend more and more time thinking, the law of diminishing return sets in. In an online environment you quite quickly get to the situation where you make more by starting another game, than you would by just playing the games you are already playing better."

"... if you can comfortably stop and think for, say, five seconds about a decision, then you could make more money if you were playing more games and didn't spend so long thinking about your actions."

"You bet the river. Do you really need to know what happens next? Maybe you won maybe you didn't. Spending the time to find out is a leak. Time spent finding out whether you won or not is time that could be spent making decisions elsewhere."

"What I am trying to do here is to get people to change their perspective. Forget playing the best poker you can; instead concentrate on maximizing the return per hour over a range of games."

He goes on to say that each new table you add is a new "income stream" but that there will be a diminishing return to that as well and we should consider trying to add as many tables as possible until we find we've hit that point. I thought it was all pretty interesting.