[Dazarath]

[ QUOTE ]
Using the extreme example to disprove idea, it is easy to see that if you play 100 tables you would need a larger bankroll. Of course, in practice, this may not apply.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is an extreme case and it's not quite addressing the standard misconception a lot of people have.

There's been quite a few threads on this subject, and the misconception is that playing more tables increases your variance. The thing is, your variance per hour (or per amount of time), but your variance per 100 hands does not.

In theory, if you play the same multi-tabling as you do single-tabling, then the bankroll requirements are exactly the same for a given winrate, standard deviation, and desired risk of ruin.

In reality, changing the number of tables also changes your winrate. Most of us could not 100-table without dropping our winrate into the red. You could also argue that a 4-tabler could choose the 4 juiciest tables available, whereas an 8-tabler would be forced to sit down on the 4 next juiciest tables, which would lower one's BB/100. The bankroll requirements do change, not because of a change in variance, but because of the inevitable change in winrate.

There's also the so-called "ADD" internet players who claim that their winrate actually increases when going from 1 table to 4 tables because the "boredom" would cause them to play hands they otherwise would've folded. I'm probably one of these people. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]