Bankroll for playing 3 15/30 games [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

Equal

10-28-2004, 04:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
All playing 3 tables does is increase the number of hands you'll see over a given time period.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not quite true. A player's win rate per table goes down when he adds tables. For example, a player that makes 3BB/100 when playing a single table might only make 1.5BB/100 when playing 3 tables simultaneously.

What this does mean is players need a bigger bankroll when multi-tabling.

I would suggest 400bb-500bb.

AlwaysWrong

10-28-2004, 05:21 AM

You also have to consider that there are a lot of implicit assumptions in the 300 bb guideline - that you play at a fairly constant level all the time being a big one. When you start to play badly, you will now start to play badly at three tables at once, and the consequences will be three times as great.

I like the 400-500 bb / 15k suggestions. I think the 300bb guideline could get you in trouble.

Of course when you lose the first 300bb of that 500, I'd reccommend a good week off :-).

Turning Stone Pro

10-28-2004, 09:45 AM

What would I do for my second week of play?

TSP

Will C

10-28-2004, 01:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That's not quite true. A player's win rate per table goes down when he adds tables. For example, a player that makes 3BB/100 when playing a single table might only make 1.5BB/100 when playing 3 tables simultaneously.

What this does mean is players need a bigger bankroll when multi-tabling.

I would suggest 400bb-500bb.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it's quite true. You cannot come to any _certain_ conclusion other than you see 3x more hands over a given time period when playing 3 tables (assuming the hands per hour are roughly the same). Some players may play better playing 3 tables as it causes them to tilt less, or have the same winrate, etc.

Also, your 1.5BB/100 is a rather poor example. If 300BB is enough for 1.5BB/100 winrate single tabling, then 1.5BB/100 is enough for 3 tables. There is no difference between 1.5BB/100 play at 1 table and 1.5BB/100 play at 3 tables, other than the number of hands played. 300BB is sufficient for both.

Fianchetto

10-28-2004, 01:25 PM

a minimum of 10K, and you'd be a lot safer with 12K-15K

Will C

10-28-2004, 01:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You also have to consider that there are a lot of implicit assumptions in the 300 bb guideline - that you play at a fairly constant level all the time being a big one. When you start to play badly, you will now start to play badly at three tables at once, and the consequences will be three times as great.

I like the 400-500 bb / 15k suggestions. I think the 300bb guideline could get you in trouble.

Of course when you lose the first 300bb of that 500, I'd reccommend a good week off :-).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false. Consider: you are 3 tabling and see an average of 210hands/hour(70hands/hour/table). Out of every 100 hours, you play badly for 1 hour. Over 100 hours, you see a total of 21,000 hands, and play 210 of them badly. Now consider: you are single tabling and see an average of 70hands/hour. Out of every 100 hours, you play 1 hour badly. In 100 hours, you see 7000 hands, and play 70 of them badly. In 300 hours you see 21000 hands, play 210 of them badly. The number of poorly played/tilted hands are identical.

Also, see my other post for why 300BB is sufficient. I've noticed that many poker players seem to feel like multitabling makes your bankroll take huge, wild swings. In a given time period, the swings may be larger, but the expectation is greater. Over a given number of hands, the swings are identical. Let me repeat this and give an example: the swings you see multitabling 3 tables over a 4 month period are the same swings you see over a year single tabling. However, the positive expectation is the same at the end of each time period.

300BB should be sufficient.

mplspoker

10-28-2004, 01:41 PM

Will do you play the 15 on Party? If you do you will know that you need more than $9,000..... Some of your logic makes sense, but if you are playing 8-12 tables I have done it on many different limits you are going to have WILD SWINGS of 100BB's+ in a single session........

bugstud

10-28-2004, 03:22 PM

the SD on the party tables are much, much higher than most any other limit.

Just trust everyone on this one.

mike l.

10-28-2004, 03:37 PM

mike l.

10-28-2004, 03:39 PM

"Out of every 100 hours, you play badly for 1 hour."

change the word "badly" to "well" and youll see how i came to my figure below.

Senor Choppy

10-28-2004, 03:50 PM

300BB doesn't just take win rate into account, it's also based on SD.

You could have a win rate of 100 BB/100 and 300BB still wouldn't be enough if your SD was high enough.

$15k is probably a good idea for most players.

Lawrence Ng

10-28-2004, 08:00 PM

Most people say 300 BB, but I think if you want to err on the safe side, make it 500 BB and completely dedicate it.

Mikey

10-28-2004, 08:12 PM

"That's not quite true. A player's win rate per table goes down when he adds tables. For example, a player that makes 3BB/100 when playing a single table might only make 1.5BB/100 when playing 3 tables simultaneously."

How do you come up with this answer? Show math.

Equal

10-29-2004, 12:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"That's not quite true. A player's win rate per table goes down when he adds tables. For example, a player that makes 3BB/100 when playing a single table might only make 1.5BB/100 when playing 3 tables simultaneously."

How do you come up with this answer? Show math.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems quite self evident that as you add tables, your ability to play them well goes down, and so does your win rate. You need math? Play 1 table. Then increase it to 5. Then 10. Then 100 tables at once. Your win rate will go down.

As your win rate goes down, your bankroll needs to increase. This also seems self-evident.

Did I explain this well enough now?

Tyler Durden

10-29-2004, 01:56 AM

Good to see I inspired your location. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

But seriously, get your own material.

citanul

10-29-2004, 02:17 AM

Your statement is pretty silly, and your backup "proof" is insultingly so.

I see this argument all the time, and it is just absurd.

Consider if you will:

There are some players who play one table FAR better than they play two tables, and play each table at 2 tables FAR better than they play 3 tables, etc.

There are some players who play one table MARGINALLY better than they play two tables, etc.

There are some players who it doesn't really make a difference at all.

I think that most people who are making the argument you made, that in general, there is a winrate X for one table, and a winrate of X/N for N tables, are just people who are very bad at multiple tables.

Yes, there are limits, such as your ridiculous "you need proof, try playing 100 tables." But there are many many players who play 2, 4, 8 or 12 tables quite successfully.

The bottom line being that while one may not be able to multitable well, that doesn't mean that others cannot, and spouting this stuff is just silly.

In response to the original question, I think that given the nature of the Party 15 game, somewhere in the $15k range is very reasonable, since you stated that you never want to replenish your funds. This of course assumes you are a known winning player in the game. There are formulae for this though, and you can calculate the risk of ruin you sustain given your own stats.

The biggest effect that I feel multitabling has is that if you tilt, instead of having X minutes on one table of tilting, you have XxN table minutes of tilting, (N tables), which can be quite a slide. If you are prone to going on silly tilt, just don't play the 15 game. Get that out of your system somewhere else. Other factors such as "running good" and "running bad" don't have any effect on or effect from multitabling.

Be sure when you multitable that you are up to it. If you can't handle 2 tables well, don't start with 4. Common sense stuff.

citanul

bicyclekick

10-29-2004, 02:37 AM

I think I actually do better with 4 tables than 1. Less boredom means less stupid plays.

It's why some people have a harder time playing live than online (myself included to an extent).

Dantes

10-29-2004, 03:16 AM

Isn't it amazing how everyone who has some how figured out how to work the internets* and post here on this forum is capable of winning at a minimum 1.5 big bets per 100 hands while 4 tabling 15/30? I just find it stunning! Oh what an age we live in!

* which is required for PartyPoker.com

TwoNiner

10-29-2004, 04:10 AM

If your winrate per 100 decreases when multitabling than you absolutely need a bigger bankroll than you would need for playing one table.

Will C

10-29-2004, 06:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest effect that I feel multitabling has is that if you tilt, instead of having X minutes on one table of tilting, you have XxN table minutes of tilting, (N tables), which can be quite a slide.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you don't believe multitabling causes you to tilt a higher percentage of your time, then this is irrelevant. I'll c&p what I wrote in one of the above posts:

[ QUOTE ]
This is false. Consider: you are 3 tabling and see an average of 210hands/hour(70hands/hour/table). Out of every 100 hours, you play badly for 1 hour. Over 100 hours, you see a total of 21,000 hands, and play 210 of them badly. Now consider: you are single tabling and see an average of 70hands/hour. Out of every 100 hours, you play 1 hour badly. In 100 hours, you see 7000 hands, and play 70 of them badly. In 300 hours you see 21000 hands, play 210 of them badly. The number of poorly played/tilted hands are identical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will C

10-29-2004, 06:09 AM

Not necessarily true. It depends on what your play is doing to your SD as well. As an example: you are allowed to play one of two games: one where you are a 99% favorite to win, and are paid 2:1 for a win, the other you are a 60% favorite to win and paid 6:1 for a win. In the first game, you win two bets 99 times and lose 1 bet 1 time out of 100 plays. Your expectation is 1.98 bets every time you play. In the second game, you win 6 bets 6 times, and lose 1 bet 4 times out of every 10 plays. Your expectation is 3.6 bets every time you play. Yet clearly in game two you would need a larger bankroll to play.

Will C

10-29-2004, 06:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Will do you play the 15 on Party? If you do you will know that you need more than $9,000..... Some of your logic makes sense, but if you are playing 8-12 tables I have done it on many different limits you are going to have WILD SWINGS of 100BB's+ in a single session........

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. The reason my logic makes sense is because it's correct. As for your question, I've played about 5,000 hands at the 15/30 at party. Not nearly as many as alot around here but yes, I've put some time in on the tables there. I don't find it at all relevant to the discussion however, as the only thing necessary is some math skills. The simple fact of the matter is that the swings in a given session, regardless of how many tables you are playing, don't matter assuming you have a generally acceptable SD and winrate. The fact that you could have a 100BB swing up or down in EVERY session if you played enough tables would not matter. Regardless of how many tables you are playing, as long as the SD and winrate are "generally acceptable," 300BB should be sufficient.

Will C

10-29-2004, 06:18 AM

This is true. However, there is no reason to suspect the SD changing so significantly from 1 table to 3 or 4 that a near doubling in bankroll is necessary. The simple fact of the matter is, if you bust 300BB at 15/30, you are almost assuredly not a winning player, case closed.

Senor Choppy

10-29-2004, 06:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The simple fact of the matter is, if you bust 300BB at 15/30, you are almost assuredly not a winning player, case closed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really need to stop posting here.

Will C

10-29-2004, 06:21 AM

I don't know what the poster's SD is playing the 15/30 as a single table, but you'll notice that I said: "If 300BB is enough for 1.5BB/100 winrate single tabling, then 1.5BB/100 is enough for 3 tables. There is no difference between 1.5BB/100 play at 1 table and 1.5BB/100 play at 3 tables, other than the number of hands played. 300BB is sufficient for both." Basically, if 300BB is sufficient for 1 table of 15/30, it is more than likely sufficient for 3 or 4. I don't see SD changing so much that it would require an extra 200BB.

Will C

10-29-2004, 06:23 AM

And why is that? I take it you are inferencing I believe that you cannot go on a 300BB downswing at the 15/30, which is not what I said. If this is not the case, please enlighten me, but drop the attitude, it's really unnecessary.

GuyOnTilt

10-29-2004, 08:50 AM

What do you guys consider a safe amount to 3 table at this level?

If the purpose of your bankroll is to not bust, then 500 BB's is sufficient. If the purpose of your bankroll is to not ever have to step down in stakes, then I'd recommend 800 BB's.

GoT

DanZ

10-29-2004, 09:04 AM

Have not read anything else, but find your win rate per hour and standard deviation, and figure it out on your own using Gambling theory and Other Topics or a shortcut in Poker, GAming and Life.

Assuming your win rate will deteriorate as you play more tables, your bankroll needs increase, but this is the only reason it would increase - the rate of play on its own has nothing to do with it.

Btw, there are 2 reasons your win rate will decrease. The obvious one is that your attention is divided and you have less time to make decisions. This is true of both the current games and from the task of looking for better games if the one you are in turns less favorable.

The less obvious is it really hampers your game selection - you are now playing in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd best games you can find and get a seat in, instead of just the best.

Dan Z.

Glenn

10-29-2004, 09:30 AM

Dan,

I usually really like your posts, but:

"Have not read anything else, but find your win rate per hour and standard deviation, and figure it out on your own using Gambling theory and Other Topics or a shortcut in Poker, GAming and Life. "

This is ridiculous. You need a number of hands on the order of 100,000 to get a win rate accurate enough to trust. By the time you've played 100,000 hands at a limit, it is too late for these bankroll formulas to be useful. Either you are a winning player and now have 1000+ bets, or you are broke. Even in the situation where money is removed from the bankroll, the fact still remains that you have played 100,000 hands at the level and pretty much know what kind of swings you are going to be dealing with. The whole thing is just masturbation.

bugstud

10-29-2004, 09:41 AM

it doesn't change that much, but even one 15/30 party table would give you a SD around 20, and that alone is enough to push it beyond the 300BB's level.

nykenny

10-29-2004, 12:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What do you guys consider a safe amount to 3 table at this level? Assume that the bankroll is not replaceable. Thanks in advance. Sorry if this has been covered many times for some of you, but I just wanted to bounce this off some of the regulars here.

[/ QUOTE ]

10K

bicyclekick

10-29-2004, 12:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And why is that? I take it you are inferencing I believe that you cannot go on a 300BB downswing at the 15/30, which is not what I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is.

[ QUOTE ]

If this is not the case, please enlighten me, but drop the attitude, it's really unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

The simple fact of the matter is, if you bust 300BB at 15/30, you are almost assuredly not a winning player, case closed.

[/ QUOTE ]

That statement sure has some attitude behind it.

Point and case. 300bb downswing will happen to a winning player everntually.

nykenny

10-29-2004, 02:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Not necessarily true. It depends on what your play is doing to your SD as well. As an example: you are allowed to play one of two games: one where you are a 99% favorite to win, and are paid 2:1 for a win, the other you are a 60% favorite to win and paid 6:1 for a win. In the first game, you win two bets 99 times and lose 1 bet 1 time out of 100 plays. Your expectation is 1.98 bets every time you play. In the second game, you win 6 bets 6 times, and lose 1 bet 4 times out of every 10 plays. Your expectation is 3.6 bets every time you play. Yet clearly in game two you would need a larger bankroll to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

very very very good point. BR requirement is more affected by SD/variance than earn rate.

i totally agree.

Will C

10-29-2004, 04:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is going to be my last response. If you don't know the difference between what I said and what you apparently think I said then you shouldn't be posting here.

The fact of the matter is, if you bust 300BB at any limit, you are almost assuredly not a winning player, which is NOT the same as going on a 300BB downswing. The point is that for a winning player, the odds of catching a 300BB downswing is so small, that by the time he goes on such a downswing he should be able to withstand it. The odds that he goes on such a downswing before he can withstand it is so small, the odds say it is more likely the player was a losing player than unlucky.

[ QUOTE ]
That statement sure has some attitude behind it.

Point and case. 300bb downswing will happen to a winning player everntually.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't have time to mix words with some random, incompetent person on the internet who can't appreciate the fact I've been taking the time to explain a fairly simple mathematical fact to them, then gives me an attitude about it when they're clearly wrong. If you don't like it, don't care, whatever - don't respond, it won't bother me in the slightest.

Levi King

10-29-2004, 05:33 PM

What about people who are looking to take money out as they win? The question is not how much do I need to START playing $15/30, it's how much do I need to PLAY $15/30.

A bankroll is just that, the amount of money needed to cover play. I'm taking any excess out because I don't need it for my roll. So, if the bankroll question is "How much do I need in my account to play $15/30 and ensure that I never have to move down a limit?" and you agree that a 300BB downswing is, however unlikely, still possible, then you have to advocate a higher bankroll than 300BB. Future winnings or timing of the downswing has no bearing on the question.

I personally want to keep 500BB in my $15/30 roll. I never want to move down a level and I don't want my play to start changing when I hit a 200 - 300 BB downswing because I'm not properly stacked. With the additional 200 BB I have the cushion I need.

Anything over 500BB is promptly extracted to pay for rent and liquor.

TimM

10-29-2004, 10:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't have time to mix words with some random, incompetent person on the internet

[/ QUOTE ]

Will C
stranger
Reged: 09/20/04
Posts: 13

Mikey

10-29-2004, 11:37 PM

ehh.... top that off with 15K more and you'll go to bed like baby angel if drop quite a few BB that night.

Doubling12

10-30-2004, 02:18 AM

BB requirements for a bankroll are so dependant on the player's expected win rate that making a blanket statement like that is irresponsible. If the player's EV is 0, and he plays 133.3 hours X 3 tables = 400 total hours, and his SD/hour is 12BB (i.e. SD/100 of about 17BB), then his total stdev = 12 * sqrt(400) = 240. Probability of being below this at the end = 10.6%. The probability of touching a level is roughly double the probability of being under it at the end of a period (saying it's exactly double would require distributional assumptions about poker winrates that are not quite true). So, our hero has about a 21.2% chance of blowing the whole 300BB in the first 133.3 hours - less than a month for a full time player.

If the player is a 1BB per hour stud, the numbers get a lot better. But he said "nonreplaceable", and if you drop 150BB in the first 2 weeks, then what?

Will C

10-30-2004, 04:07 AM

How is responding with the typical bankroll amount irresponsible when the original poster gave no information on his EV or SD? You said yourself if the player makes 1BB an hour the numbers get a lot better than your 0 EV doom prediction. I think it's a fairly logical assumption that if the poster is asking about longterm multitable play at 15/30 he has an acceptable EV and SD.

Doubling12

10-30-2004, 12:14 PM

Actually that is the Catch 22. Suppose the player has 1000 hours logged at single table 15/30, with a winrate of 1BB per hour, and a stdev of 15BB per hour (I used 12 in my first post, after looking over my own PT stats I realized this was low). The 95% confidence interval around his winrate would be {0.22 , 1.78}. OK, so I will agree he is a winning player. Well, he has already made $30,000! So, if the poster had written something like "I made 5 figures each of the last 2 years, but I just had a kidney operation and spent all but $9000 of my bankroll, can I take a shot at 15/30 multitable?" I would say sure. Someone that good can beg, borrow, or steal to replenish if they lose. But the average person who would make a post like that will be broke long before they reach a statisically significant answer on how good they are.