Sloe Times

So I went out last night to burn off a gift certificate that I got at Christmas for the local book store. I hadn't intended to pick up new poker books, but apparently the urge for more input was too strong. Because I wanted to understand why players play the way they do and better understand how I play I picked up The Psychology of Poker by Alan Schoonmaker. I also decided that after reading many of the 'fundamental' poker books that I would pick what looked like the best one regarding online play and see if it actually offered any worthwhile insight. To that end, I ended up getting Killer Poker Online by John Vorhaus because the authors name was familiar and frankly given the 5 minutes of browsing the table of contents and stuff it seemed to be organized better than the other popular book Internet Texas Hold'em by Matthew Hilger. Nothing truly against Matthew's book, but it just didn't seem to have any substance to it that appealed to me more than John's.

Anyway, I'm still reading and have gotten about half way through it. Oddly enough, at half way through the book, he's only covered the mechanics of getting online and the more psychological aspects of playing. In fact come to think of it, other than offering tips and strategies he doesn't talk about how to play at all, operating under the assumption that you already know how to play the game. Another plus for getting this book for the non-beginner. Anyway, the following excerpt is in line with my thinking on the practice of multi-tabling.

Some players think double-dipping is a great idea. They reckon that playing in two games gives them twice the opportunity to win, and it would if (a) they were winning players to begin with (most aren't), and (b) they could adequately contend in two games at once (most can't). But if concentration (read boredom -sloe) is a problem, playing two games at once can seem like a solution.
...
The question is, can it last? Are you really so good a player, so much better than your opponents, that you can afford to spread your skills and your attention over two games at once? Are you really so adept at following the action that you can pick up every little nuance in both games? Are you so arrogant as to believe you'll never miss something critical?

Then there's the rudeness factor. If you're stewing over a decision in one game, you may be holding up the action in the other. You do owe a debt of courtesy to the other players. It's not fair to slow them down just because playing one game at a time doesn't hold your focus.

I try real hard not to be a 'poker professor' while playing even though I see people do things that really shouldn't have happened, usually against me, but the thing that really gets my goat is slow play by multi-table players because they're not paying attention to the table I'm on.

Perhaps my friends take on it is more reasonable. He likes the multi-tablers, they can be pushed relatively easily off of their blinds, thus removing one or two hands per orbit that they would normally be able to play without paying attention. Then when they catch on to what is happening and get pissy about it, they just end up trying to 'out play' him and tilt. Me personally, I'll continue to play my cards and grumble quietly about those slow playing asses that seem content to slow down the game everywhere they are. Ah well, enough ranting. If you're a multi-tabler, more power to you. Just have some common courtesy and don't slow down the games you're involved in.