More than 4 tables

[Dubra]

OK, since today was a rough day in the trenches, this spawned some thought. If I play more tables than i play now (4), i can experience less losing sessions. i realize this increases variance, but i am operating under the belief that on average i should win. so if i am playing more tables i should win overal more?

-assume i can find fishy tables
yes i believe most of party 2/4 is ok

- assume i can play at a high level
yes 4 tables is fine, probably 6 would work

am i missing anything? this whole thought process is spawned by my realization i would rather have more winning sessions, not necessarily the magnitude but just in the black rather than the red.

sorry if it rambles or is all wrong, i am tired and just spitting out my thought process. thanks

[steveyz]

Basically if you are a winning player, tiredness/fatigue aside, the more hands you play in a session, the more likely it is that it will be a winning session. It doesn't matter how you get more hands in, whether by playing more tables at one time, or playing a longer time at the same number of tables.

[JohnnyHumongous]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically if you are a winning player, tiredness/fatigue aside, the more hands you play in a session, the more likely it is that it will be a winning session. It doesn't matter how you get more hands in, whether by playing more tables at one time, or playing a longer time at the same number of tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, except it overlooks the phenomenon that playing more tables reduces your expectation (expressed in BB/100 hands) uniformly at all your tables. When this expectation multiplied by numbers of tables starts diminishing then you are playing sub-optimally.

Imagine a guy who can on average make 3 BB/100 playing 1 table. He can make 2.5 BB/100 playing 2 tables, 2.2 BB/100 playing 3 tables, and 1.6 BB/100 playing 4 tables. How many tables should he play?

[invast]

With your examples obviously 3 tables, but you decided your BB/100 kind of weird. You go down .5, .3, .6 BB/100.