Combining bankrolls....would this work??

[IlliniRyRy]

I've been thinking about this for awhile, but I have no clue if this concept is valid or not, so I need someone's help. Let's say 10 proven winning players get together and start one new bankroll for a specific limit, and they all play an equal amount of hours and then divide the profits equally. Just for argument's sake (although this is tough to prove), let's say all the players are at about the same skill level, and are expected to make about the same hourly rate. If this is the case, then over the long run, the expected return would be the same as if one player just sat down and did it all himself, BUT since many more hands are being played, the data is more smoothed out and the daily variance would be much less. If one of the players was on a losing streak, the psychological burden of that loss would be eliminated since the luck will even out quicker from the other 9 players' results. Agree/disagree? Would you be able to use leverage here to your advantage and make more money by playing a higher limit than you normally would?

[astroglide]

it will work if they're comparative in skill, but it could be highly abusive if used together. would you like to sit at a table with 9 people from the same family?

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been thinking about this for awhile, but I have no clue if this concept is valid or not, so I need someone's help. Let's say 10 proven winning players get together and start one new bankroll for a specific limit, and they all play an equal amount of hours and then divide the profits equally. Just for argument's sake (although this is tough to prove), let's say all the players are at about the same skill level, and are expected to make about the same hourly rate. If this is the case, then over the long run, the expected return would be the same as if one player just sat down and did it all himself, BUT since many more hands are being played, the data is more smoothed out and the daily variance would be much less. If one of the players was on a losing streak, the psychological burden of that loss would be eliminated since the luck will even out quicker from the other 9 players' results. Agree/disagree? Would you be able to use leverage here to your advantage and make more money by playing a higher limit than you normally would?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need some clarification here before you ask a question like this.

let E(Wi) be the ith players expected win rate. and S be the summation sign. SE(wi)>E(wi) . that is definately the first thing you need to realize. the sume of all of the individual player's expectations for a given game (assuming all are positive with an almost non existant variance-all win rates are almost the same)is greater than any individual player's expectation.

if i=10 and Bi=ith players bankroll and B1=B2=B3=..=B10 then let SBi=Bt (total bankroll) where i=1-10. Bt used by 1 player with E(w1) or by 10 players with E(w1)-E(w10) will indeed produce different variances as you stated...but you got it reversed. ONE player playing with Bt will have a significantly (massively) smaller standard deviation (with respect to Bt) than 10 players using the same Bt for each of their games.

that should clear up most of your post.

"If one of the players was on a losing streak, the psychological burden of that loss would be eliminated since the luck will even out quicker from the other 9 players' results. Agree/disagree? "

what does luck evening out have to do with the psychological burden of that loss for the player suffereing the loss?? so i guess i disagree...but what you are saying here isn't even clear to my so i can't really stand on any ground to disagree. clearly since all "i" players are playing 40 hands/hour (400 hands/hour) vs. one player playing 40 hands/hour there will be more of a chance for the number of hands played to be waaaaay up for the former. But the number of hands played by each individual player remains constant so each "i"'s variance (if tracked individually) will be relatively equal. the fact that you're POOLING the variances increases the short term luck factor on Bt relative to B1 (or any individual Bi).

i hope this helps a bit...but if you're more precise with what you're asking i can try to help you out a bit more.

take care,
-Barron

[DcifrThs]

are you saying that the win rate of one player using a bankroll that is comprised of 10 players' bankrolls will have the same win rate as 10 players ALL playing in presumably different games using that same combined bankroll?? (keeping in mind human beings only live about 60 poker playing years)

if so i strongly disagree.
-Barron

[astroglide]

i think that if the players are roughly the same it would be as if 1 person played 10 times as much.

[rory]

What are you talking about dude? If you assume each of the players are the same skill, then having 10 people play on 1 bankroll is the same as one person playing 10 times as many hands or playing for 10 times as long.

I think you are thinking that the variance is per hour, so if you have more people playing you could possibly have bigger swings, per hour. But if you are splitting the playing between people, thinking about anything per hour is useless. You have to convert it to thinking per hand. And per hand, the variance is exactly the same.

So if this guy has 10 people he can trust or whatever, this seems like a great way to play up at higher limits without the roll.

[karlson]

Sure, this works. It's not easy to set up though, as I'm sure you realize.

Tommy has written about this a few times if I'm not mistaken.

[DcifrThs]

exactly...and that person playing 10 times as much would have an overall higher ev.

[DcifrThs]

so when you calculate your win rate, do you do it per hand or per hour?

thats the driving calculation here, for me at least. i don't calculate my win rate per hand...
-Barron

[IlliniRyRy]

In terms of lessening the likelihood of busting, this idea of combining bankrolls does seem to work because it's less affected by short term fluctuation. If each player has 100BB for a bankroll, the likelihood of 10 players losing their bankrolls due to bad luck is obviously much less likely than just one player going through a 100BB downswing. I agree with everything that Dcifer had to say, but I'm not sure we're all on the same page here. Yes, obviously the standard deviation for 10 players is greater than one, that's not the point I'm trying to make. As a whole, it just limits the downside more from each individual's perspective. I'm wondering if you can use this idea to play higher limits that you normally wouldn't play. I think you'll find out rather quickly whether or not your group can actually beat the limit you move up to over the long run, whereas it would take one player much longer, for obvious reasons.