Re: Bankroll for multitables?
 

[ QUOTE ]
But most people that 4 table play 4 times as many hands as someone who 1 tables over the course of a month.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes?

This still doesn't mean they need a larger bankroll than the player who only plays one table.

Re: Bankroll for multitables?
 

[ QUOTE ]
because you play more hands logically your variance goes up per hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is correct.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefor you need a bigger bankroll incase of a downswing

[/ QUOTE ]

this is incorrect. Do you need a larger bankroll to play 3/6 online than you do live? because you get about twice as many hands per hour online plalying one table

Re: Bankroll for multitables?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
because you play more hands logically your variance goes up per hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is correct.


[/ QUOTE ]


Please explain to me how variance will go up by playing more hands per hour. If the variance does increase, one would need a larger bankroll.

Everything I've read on this site has suggested otherwise, and I am fairly sure I understand all the concepts in question.

Re: Bankroll for multitables?
 

He's confusing "more varience" with "faster varience" or "varience more quickly" and something just isn't clicking with him.

Larger downswings are not going to happen, they are just going to happen more frequently. (as I beat the dead horse to death!)

Re: Bankroll for multitables?
 

of course your variance remains the same despite the number of hands you are playing per hour, but your hourly variance will increase. So his statement was technically correct since he added per hour at the end, but i don't think it was intentional or clearly understood.

edit: i like dealertoe's explanation above better than mine

Re: Bankroll for multitables?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Think about it this way.
Let's say you are in a regular B&M cardroom.
Suddenly the dealer is able to deal 4x as fast.

Would you need a bigger bankroll for this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like everyone in this thread is making the assumption that adding additional tables has no effect on win rate. So if I can win 3BB/100 at one table, I can do the same on two at once, and can do the same on 3 at once, and can do the same on 4 at once. If you make that assumption, then sure, I don't need a bigger bankroll in order to play 4 at once. I think for the vast majority of players out there, this statement is false. That is, win rate decreases as number of concurrent tables increases. Given that, you do in fact need a bigger bankroll in order to play 4 tables at once. Do you see why?

Re: Bankroll for multitables?
 

I think there is a difference in winrate, but the question at hand was the size of the bankroll for multitabling. I don't think you need to drastically change the reccomended BR minimum of 300BB by adding tables. Infact I've heard B&M Pros reccomend 200BB, so for all I know the 300BB is plenty cautious.

Re: Bankroll for multitables?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Seems like everyone in this thread is making the assumption that adding additional tables has no effect on win rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody has said that.

Do you see why?

[ QUOTE ]
That is, win rate decreases as number of concurrent tables increases. Given that, you do in fact need a bigger bankroll in order to play 4 tables at once. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Explain it to me.

Re: Bankroll for multitables?
 

I have read on here (and agree with this notion as well) that if you are comfortable with a 300BB bankroll for 1 or 2 tables you may want to consider 350BB for 4-tabling simply because of the lower win-rate you are likely to have with additional tables.

If your win-rate goes from 3BB/100 at 2 tables to 2.5BB/100 at 4-tables then naturally this could effect your bankroll as well.

Re: Bankroll for multitables?
 

I have always read (on here) that multitabling does not affect variance in a significant way if you are good at it.

If the variance does not change, I see no reason for a bigger bankroll.

I remember a huge thread devoted to this.
The issue got hammered out in all ways.

Unless I'm remembering something wrong, or all those posters were wrong, I'm not sure why this is still being debated.