Multitabling and bankroll

[Peter-23]

I have been multitabling for a cople of weeks now and are wondering how big a bankroll I should have.

I know that for one table a fair amount would be 300BB, but if I play 4 tables what would it be then?

Is it 4 x 300BB = 1200BB
or is it still 300BB (or something else)

I mean in a mathematical sence as well as what you think on this matter.

Would appriciate any thoughts, thanks.

[lil feller]

I'm not sure about the responses you get, but 300 should be plenty for multitabling as well. We use that 300 BB figure to provide us with a cushion should things go poorly, to ensure that we have enough bets to get us to the "long run". When playing 4 tables at once, and seeing nearly 300 hands per hour, you get to the "long run" much faster. It is possible to get drilled in four games at once, but you still probably won't burn through 300 BB as long as the games you are playing in aren't insanely aggressive.

lf

[XChamp]

Whether you play 1 table at a time or 100 your bankroll requirements should be the same. This assumes that all tables are equivalent and you can play 100 simultaneously as well as you can play 2.

Think of it this way. What is the difference between playing 4 NL$100 tables at 200 hands/hr or one NL$100 table at 200 hands/hr? There is none.


However, if you feel that your play decreases when multi-tabling you should allow for a bankroll increase.


Here is another way to think about it. If I play 500,000 hands of poker I have an expected value and variance associated with that number of hands. It doesn't matter how I played those hands. I could have played 20 hands/ day or I could have played all 500,000 in one hour in late December. My point is that if you played all your hands equally well your variance and expected value will be the same, which means that your bankroll requirements are the same. Thus, if you play 2-tables just as well as you play one (not too unlikely) then your bankroll doesn't need to increase.

[XChamp]

I should add, however, that once you get above 2 tables most people cannot play each hand nearly as well as they could if they were only playing one table. This means that if you get in 500,000 hands 4-tabling your winrate/hand will most likely be significantly less than if you got in 500,000 hands playing a single table. I am not sure how your variance would be affected (I suspect it would increase/hand as well).

This all means that you should generally increase your bankroll when multi-tabling if your ability to play each hand well is less than when you single-table.


By how much you should increase it is difficult to say. What is your variance, winrate, and acceptable risk of ruin?

[Peter-23]

Thanks, this was the kind of answers I was looking for.

Sometimes I’m overly cautious. Or perhaps I just got it in my head that I needed a bigger bankroll, a mind bug so to speak!

But after a while playing I started to think about it and thought, a day between sessions, a week, a year, or no time between sessions? Why would there be a difference.

But I’m no wiz at this so I thought I ask you good fellows so I could correct my mind bug. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Thanks.

[PygmyHero]

I agree with the points already made - if a 300BB bankroll would sustain you at one table, mathematically it will also certainly do so multi-tabling. But the big if here is IF you play the same way. I think that's the part you should key in on.

I multi-table some and I noticed that I tend to come in on FEWER hands (as a percentage) than I do if I just play one table. I tried to come up with a few reasons why. It is more difficult to get bored and gamble since you're seeing more hands in the same amount of time. I know I must act quickly and correctly, so I tend to wait for better hands (which maybe are easier to play). This may be good because I throw away more marginal hands, but it may also be bad since I am not maximizing my winnings.

Furthermore, on a given hand I do win I may win LESS than I would have on the same hand had I been only at that one table. If I'm only at one table there is a better chance I can pick up on nuances in my opponents sytles and the game texture. This allows me to extract (and save) extra bets.

And of course while multi-tabling certainly allows me the chance to win more (more quickly that is), it also allows me to lose more quickly. The added pressure may affect your play.

I do kind of feel you're better off with a larger bankroll. I cannot claim to have played enough single table and multi-table to back this up, but I do think that when I am multi-tabling I am cutting into my win rate (in terms of $/table hour), even though my win rate (in $/hour) is greater.