Does Multi-Tabling Increase Variance?

[CaptainNurple]

Do I need to have a larger bankroll if I want to multi-table "safely"?

Some people suggest 150 BBs for O8, other people suggest 300, but either way, do these requirements go up if I want to play more than one table at once?

In other words, I've got about $300 right now, so I can play .5/1 with confidence, but is this enough if I want to play 2 or 3 tables at once?

Thanks for the replies all.

-CN

[PokerProdigy]

I don't think so, and if they do it's probably just a little bit, and a result of NOT paying as much attention at each table.

[Cleveland Guy]

[ QUOTE ]
Do I need to have a larger bankroll if I want to multi-table "safely"?

Some people suggest 150 BBs for O8, other people suggest 300, but either way, do these requirements go up if I want to play more than one table at once?

In other words, I've got about $300 right now, so I can play .5/1 with confidence, but is this enough if I want to play 2 or 3 tables at once?

Thanks for the replies all.

-CN

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually multi-tabling will reduce variance.

You get in more hands quicker - so you are closer to the long run quicker.

If you want - look at it like 4 individual session. If you bought in for $40 each session, how often would you have 4 losing sessions?

If anything, you will be closer to the slight +EV you should expect (assuming a winning player).

Imagine your 4 tables, for 200 hands each table.

You could be up 11.5 on one, down 13.5 on another, up 22 on the third, and down 19 on the 4th.

Looks a bit swingy - but it's really not.

[CaptainNurple]

[ QUOTE ]
You could be up 11.5 on one, down 13.5 on another, up 22 on the third, and down 19 on the 4th.

Looks a bit swingy - but it's really not.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it that type of scenario going to be more common in multi-tabling than the worst-case scenario of being down at all 4 tables?

(it's actually that thought which prompted this post--the expectation that multi-tabling would mean that some days I'd be down at every table and other days I'd be up at every table, thus creating bigger swings).

In practice, however, does it tend to play out as you mentioned above, with the tables "balancing themselves out"?

[Mr_J]

Tables don't 'balance themselves out'. Your swings WILL be greater playing 4 tables, simply because you are playing many more hands, and the more hands you play the more likely wild swings will occur.

Variance is higher at 4tables simply because you can't play 4tables as well as you can play 1. Since winrate decreases a bit, variance will increase.

"the expectation that multi-tabling would mean that some days I'd be down at every table and other days I'd be up at every table, thus creating bigger swings). "

Yes this will happen. But remember profits will come much more quickly as well, so it's very likely you will have created a buffer.

Just play 4 tables. The only thing you should worry about when playing more tables is that you have enough to buy in for 20+bb per table, and that you have enough BR in reserve so that if you drop a certain amount, you still have enough to play comfortably at this level or the level below (if you don't mind dropping down). If you don't mind dropping down a level, you can get away with MUCH less.

My own plan is to always move up when I have 200bb for the next level. Whenever I drop 75bb, I will drop back down. However, when I reach 5/10, I will beef that up so I have 250+. This is simply because when I reach that level, I don't want to move back down even after a bad run (I'll want to maintain the income I make up there).

[Ribbo]

Multi tabling helps reduce variance. Instead of playing 2/4 try playing 4 tables of .5/1 instead. You should win or lose the same roughly, but with less swings. It helps to do this to train your mind to making decisions quicker and gets you more experience through playing hands

[GooperMC]

[ QUOTE ]
Your swings WILL be greater playing 4 tables

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes your potential max win/loss will be higher but because you are playing many more hands your actual variance will be much lower.

This is a question of sample size. If you long term you are winning 2BB/100 and you play 100 hands your chance of losing money is fairly high. However if you play 400 hands your probability of losing money is dramatically lowered. With a higher sample size your potential max / win loss increases but your overall variance will decrease.

[Mr_J]

"but because you are playing many more hands your actual variance will be much lower."

Variance isn't actually lower, it's just that results revert to the mean quicker when multitabling since you are playing more hands. This simply means that after X hours of multitabling, your results are more likely to be more accurate than X hours of single tabling. It doesn't actually reduce variance though.

[GooperMC]

I think that we have gotten way away from the original post, so just one more comment.

[ QUOTE ]
Variance isn't actually lower, it's just that results revert to the mean quicker when multitabling since you are playing more hands

[/ QUOTE ]
That is the definition of variance: deviation from the mean.

[Mr_J]

I meant that variance per table doesn't change, but agree that sessions will have less variance (since more hands = more likely to reflect true advantage).

[graarrg]

[ QUOTE ]
I meant that variance per table doesn't change, but agree that sessions will have less variance (since more hands = more likely to reflect true advantage).

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Variance remains the same. What you experience is faster gravitation toward the mean the more hands you cram in per unit of time.

Assuming you are playing 4 equal tables and play just as well as you do with one table, the only difference between 1000 spread over all 4 tables and 1000 at a single one is how long it takes you to finish the 1000. We multi-table because we don't live forever.

[Mr_J]

"We multi-table because we don't live forever."

Actually, I multitable to boost my hourly rate. Getting into the long run quicker is just a bonus /images/graemlins/smirk.gif