Bankroll and Multitabling

[Rivereater]

Was hoping to get some experienced 2+2's feedback on multitabling and bankroll. Before becoming a member, I was always told 200 times BB for a bankroll. I notice 2+2 members typically recommend 300 times BB. Is this PER table or up to 4 tables?

Can someone recommend a bankroll for .50/$1.00 per table as well as for $1/$2. Currently 3 tabling .50/1.00 and looking to move up. I'm good for 200 BB per table at .50/$1.00 but I think that's excessive. Was a winning player on one table at $1/$2, but dropped down to increase tables and clear some bonuses. Looking to move back up and keep the extra tables.

Thanks

[topspin]

The BB bankroll numbers are total, not per table.

[mmmmmbrother]

isnt the 300bb recomendation to cushion any swings that may occur?i dont think you need 3 seperate bankrolls for three tables, its just like playing three times as fast.

three tables at .5/1 will be the same as three tables at 1/2

[2+2 wannabe]

bankroll is total, not per table - 300BB is pretty standard

the number of tables does not increase variance (actually reduces with respect to time) - so 300BB is good for up to 5/6 tables

so for .50/1 a $300 bankroll (per site of course) is necessary - for 1/2 a $600 bankroll is standard

as for how much to bring to each table, you will get mixed answers - i always take 50BB to each table, but any number between 25-50 is good (any lower and you have to refresh too often - any higher and some people say that you "intimidate" others)

p.s. don't ever start a hand with less than 12BB

[topspin]

[ QUOTE ]
the number of tables does not increase variance (actually reduces with respect to time) - so 300BB is good for up to 5/6 tables

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a minor nitpick: your variance per hour does increase with multi-tabling, but your expected earn per hour also increases to compensate.

[Rivereater]

I actually thought my variance went DOWN as well. I have noticed that I may have a huge night on one table, a moderate night on another table and be down on the third table. My average variance appears to have gone down.

I also though the tables were cumulative. Playing one 2/4 table should be similar in monetary swings as 4 .50/1.00. If you assume you could make 1 BB per 100 (I know in practice doing this on 4 tables at .50/1.00 is easier than on one table at 2/4) you would have 4*$1.00=$4.00 per 100 hands on the .50/$1.00 table, and 1*4(2/4)=$4.00 on the $2/$4 table. If thats true, then you should require the same bankroll for 4 .50/1.00 tables as you would for one 2/4 table.

If it is as you say variance increases, then shouldn't your bankroll increase to reduce the risk of ruin?

[UncleSalty]

I used to think it went down w/ multi tables too. I thought it was akin to diversifying your portfolio, in that the performance on each table would be imperfectly correlated, thus reducing your variance.

I then expressed that view a few months back in a thread on the Texas Hold'em forum and got my hand slapped pretty good. Mason gives a good discussion of this in GTOT and yes, you do need a slightly bigger bankroll to compensate for the increased variance and (slightly) diminished winrate resulting from being more distracted. I generally think 300 BB is plenty, although I try to keep it at more like 350-500. (Unless I'm getting ready to move up of course.)

[Rah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the number of tables does not increase variance (actually reduces with respect to time) - so 300BB is good for up to 5/6 tables

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a minor nitpick: your variance per hour does increase with multi-tabling, but your expected earn per hour also increases to compensate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Variance per hour/table does not increase.
Expected earn hour/table typically decreases.