[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
If you play one game of 10-20 let's agree you need a 6,000br, or a 300bbbr.

Whether you play this one game fast or slow is irrelevant; you still only need this 6,000br.

However, independently, each game you play needs this 6,000br, so if you played 4 tables at once and kept separate bankrolls for each game, for some strange reason, you would need a 24,000br in case each one of your games hit a major downslide at the same time.

Obviously, you don't really need to keep 4 separate bankrolls, because, in theory, you would have to reduce the number of games you were playing to 3 once your total br reduced to 18,000, and to 2 at 12,000, down to 1 at 6,000, to stay in line with standard br advice.

Working up the other way, as long as you know you should reduce to 1 game once your br has reduced to 6,000, then, in practice, it is alright to "push your luck" a little and play more than one game.

There is an exact mathematical way to work it out, but it is probably reasonable to say that a 100bb downturn on each table at once would be "unlucky", so, if you are playing four tables, with a view to reducing to 1 table in a "br emergency", a 4,000 + (4x2,000) = 12,000br should be safely sufficient.

That's a 600bbbr for a 10-20 4-tabler.

imo

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Not even close.

Your bankroll requirement is based on your win rate and standard deviation. These are commonly measured in BB/100 hands. It doesn't matter how fast or slow you play those hands; the more hands per hour, the higher your win rate per hour and the higher your SD per hour. Conversely the fewer hands you play per hour, the smaller your WR and SD are per hour. These changes in WR and SD offset exactly enough to keep your bankroll requirement the same.

The only difference in adding more tables is that your WR may go down - this change is the biggest reason for the increase in BR requirement when multi-tabling, NOT the increased number of hands/hr.