11-15-2005, 03:22 AM
Two things:
1) Is the conventional wisdom that one should have 20X the buy-in for a specific NLHE cash game level to feel well staked? (e.g. $20K for $5/$10 blinds, $1000 max buy-in with approx 5% chance of going bust). Is there mathematical evidence that this rule of thumb is roughly equivalent to the recommendation of having 300X the big bet for LHE games? (this all assumes a "winning player")
2) For the sake of argument let's assume that 20X the max. buy-in bankroll for NLHE cash games is sufficient. If one is multi-tabling games at the same level (e.g. 4 tables at $5/$10 blinds/$1000 max buy-in) then how much more of a bankroll would be needed to have the same level of comfort that one only has a 5% chance of going broke. It seems to me that playing multiple tables, again assuming a winning player, would decrease variance because of the evening out of streaks, bad beats, etc. If this is true then obviously a player would not need an $80K bankroll, in this example, to have the same 5% chance of going broke while playing 4 tables. I'm also assuming no degradation of play due to multi-tabling and less attention paid to each table.
Since I am not a math whiz I can only articulate this problem and am hoping that those with good math skills can help with the answer.
1) Is the conventional wisdom that one should have 20X the buy-in for a specific NLHE cash game level to feel well staked? (e.g. $20K for $5/$10 blinds, $1000 max buy-in with approx 5% chance of going bust). Is there mathematical evidence that this rule of thumb is roughly equivalent to the recommendation of having 300X the big bet for LHE games? (this all assumes a "winning player")
2) For the sake of argument let's assume that 20X the max. buy-in bankroll for NLHE cash games is sufficient. If one is multi-tabling games at the same level (e.g. 4 tables at $5/$10 blinds/$1000 max buy-in) then how much more of a bankroll would be needed to have the same level of comfort that one only has a 5% chance of going broke. It seems to me that playing multiple tables, again assuming a winning player, would decrease variance because of the evening out of streaks, bad beats, etc. If this is true then obviously a player would not need an $80K bankroll, in this example, to have the same 5% chance of going broke while playing 4 tables. I'm also assuming no degradation of play due to multi-tabling and less attention paid to each table.
Since I am not a math whiz I can only articulate this problem and am hoping that those with good math skills can help with the answer.