Poker goals: volume vs. quality?

[Vovk]

Lately I've been reflecting on what's more important for improvement is playing more hands overall or playing fewer hands with better concentration and analysis. I see some players playing at 10 tables at the same time, while others only play at one or two, but analyze in depth. What is your approach? Are you more focused on maximizing the scope of the game or learning and improving your game? Any tips for finding the golden mean?

 

[dreamer13]

In poker, of course, quality trumps volume. While playing poker on a large number of tables may seem efficient, in reality, it is better to focus on understanding each hand in depth and making informed decisions. More attention should be paid to the quality of the game analysis and understanding concepts such as expected value (EV) than simply increasing the number of hands.

 

[Goggelheimer]

I can say quality is better than volume.
I tried 2 times the spin and go leaderboards at GG Poker, there you have to grind hard with at least 2 tables to stay in the prize money rankings.
Each time I ended in the prize money ranges with a significant loss bankroll wise.

1 tabling is much more appreciated and gives a lot of more A-Game than a lot of auto piloting play when you multi table.

 

[CaioRJ]

Quality without volume are unprofitable.

 

[infonazar]

Lately I've been reflecting on what's more important for improvement is playing more hands overall or playing fewer hands with better concentration and analysis. I see some players playing at 10 tables at the same time, while others only play at one or two, but analyze in depth. What is your approach? Are you more focused on maximizing the scope of the game or learning and improving your game? Any tips for finding the golden mean?

If you're a beginner, it's better to focus on one table, watch the game closely, and think about every decision. If you are an experienced player, then you will not have any questions about how much and how to play.

 

[Dushka]

Lately I've been reflecting on what's more important for improvement is playing more hands overall or playing fewer hands with better concentration and analysis. I see some players playing at 10 tables at the same time, while others only play at one or two, but analyze in depth. What is your approach? Are you more focused on maximizing the scope of the game or learning and improving your game? Any tips for finding the golden mean?

You need to play as many tournaments as possible, practice more. But everyone has their own number of tournaments that are comfortable. For me, it's no more than 4.

 

[Lena M]

Quality will always be more important. This is obvious. If you can't play quality enough, then increasing the number of tables won't help you

 

[greenlarrow]

I like to play a few tables. I watch my opponents, their actions and based on this I build my strategy. It's better to play less, but with quality.

 

[john_entony]

Lately I've been reflecting on what's more important for improvement is playing more hands overall or playing fewer hands with better concentration and analysis. I see some players playing at 10 tables at the same time, while others only play at one or two, but analyze in depth. What is your approach? Are you more focused on maximizing the scope of the game or learning and improving your game? Any tips for finding the golden mean?

I usually play 2-3 tables on weekdays and 4-5 tables in the evening on weekends. I think that the quality of my game decreases, but not critically, so I can afford more poker. My advice is to play as many tables as you feel comfortable with.

 

[rufininha14]

I think that each person is different, for example, I don't like to open more than 4 screens because I think it divides my attention a lot, but I know people who open more than 10 and play well, so it depends on the person. Of course, the more screens, the more chances of winning, but I think that each player has to analyze which way each one does best and play that way.

 

[istbno]

Balancing volume and quality is essential in poker. Playing high volume helps build experience, spot patterns, and gain confidence under various conditions, which is especially useful in multi-table tournaments and grinding. However, without quality, high volume can lead to bad habits and autopilot mistakes. Focusing on quality—selective game choice, thoughtful decision-making, reviewing hands—leads to more consistent improvement and profitability. Ideally, a serious player should aim for quality first, then slowly increase volume without sacrificing focus or discipline. It's better to play fewer high-quality sessions than many unfocused ones.

 

[GIRAUG73]

I think it depends on what you are looking for and the level of experience you have,
You can play the cards, or you can play the players. Playing both is ideal, i think it may also depend on the stakes you are playing
On low stakes it might not be so important to play de player, because players are more loose, on higher stakes you can meet mor experienced players and the game isnt only about your hands, it will depend who you are playing with.
Quality gives experience, volume gives statistics

 

[Mario7]

Net profit decides. If negative, there is no reason to add more tables - just play 1, observe, analyse, learn and improve. If you are a winning player - try more tables, compare profit per hour, adjust, and so on...

 

[fernandofcp]

Playing poker in the medium and long term tires the mind, as it requires a lot of reasoning. I understand that playing a maximum of four online tables at the same time is enough, but it still demands a lot from the brain. Personally, I like to play at up to two tables at the same time, but I don't rule out playing at up to four tables, if necessary and possible. I don't think that playing more than four tables at the same time is very profitable for me, as I would make a lot of mistakes trying to get it right.