Bankroll online

[pokerboy11]

I am a regular online player, and have read many discussions as to what you should have as a bankroll...but only as if you were playing one table. What are your opinions as a bankroll requirement for playing 2, 3 or 4 tables at a time? I Currently run 3 3/6 tables at a time and use a 2000.00 bankroll. Where you run 3 tables at a time for example, each table is dependant on the other tables. Would you factor all that in, and what would be your desired bankroll overall?

[Alobar]

your bankroll will be the same weatehr you play 1 table or 9. playing 9 at once is the same as playing 1 for 9 times as long. It's all the same bankroll wise

[astroglide]

true, but it's a bummer if you don't have enough to sit right due to swings. 200 big bets of online 15/30 is only 6k. you need (at least) 1k to sit right, and a 3k swing can happen pretty quick in one direction or the other on 3 tables.

if i were going to call it a bankroll i wouldn't want less than 300 bets for multi-table play, and it's what i do - 3 tables at party, 3 tables at intertops.

[JohnShaft]

That's not quite true though Alobar.

Your bankroll for multi-tabling needs to be bigger because your win rate will be lower. It won't make much of a difference. But it will make *some*.

Not that the now semi-mythical "you need 300 BB for your limit" has half the significance it often gets.

But if you have the exact correct bankroll for your limit playing one table, you will need to increase it if you multi-table, because your win-rate is bound to lower *due* to multi-tabling. The more tables you play the more you will have to increase it.
If you were to play 9 tables your bankroll would have to increase *significantly* as your win-rate (per table) should also significantly drop.

[astroglide]

i think the drops are bested by a number of things. even if you play worse, you should make it up in numbers as long as you're not extending your limits. if i play 10% worse at 2 tables than i do at 1, it's still more profitable to play 2. furthermore, and i think this can't be overstated, playing more tables seems to promote tighter/less bored play because playable hands come around much more frequently.

i think 300 (but no less) is ok for 2-3 tables.

[Alobar]

I agree and kinda disagree. The point I was trying to make was that its all just sorta like 1 table just alot more hands, so you don't need like a 300BB bankroll for each table or something.

I am under the assumption that you need the 300BB bankroll due to the fact that sometimes your going to run bad. If your play on mulitple tables is worse than on a single table (which I agree it is) the lower win rate shouldn't cause you to need a bigger bankroll. You might not be winning as much but your still winning. If your play becomes so bad that you actually start losing money multi tabling, then it wont matter how big your bankroll is. Or am I missing something?

[OrangeHeat]

This is not quite true. Although each table can be seen as a different person/session whatever...

In B&M it is possible to have session losses of say 75-100BB on a horrible night. Now imagine you are playing four tables and happen to hit this anomaly on 3 or four of them - your bankroll is going to be pretty tight after that night. This would be a rare occurunce but combined with a slightly lower win rate does make it sensible to consider leaving a little more room to breath.

There is one more practical point brought up in this thread too - after you buy in for 40BB at say 8 tables - you only have 40 big bets to backfill 8 games! If these are party/empire 15/30 games - this is very tight considering the swings involved.

Anywhoo - these are just random thoughts. I dont even take my own advice and keep 300BB online for 4 15/30's - it hasn't bit me yet, but it could. I think I would be more comfortable with roughly 450BB just for breathing room.

Orange

[NotBannedYet]

Alobar and Astroglide,

Do either of you actually know how to calculate your needed bankroll? From your posts, it's quickly apparent that you have no clue, and that you're just regurgitating the 300BB rule.

This statement in particular:
[ QUOTE ]
If your play on mulitple tables is worse than on a single table (which I agree it is) the lower win rate shouldn't cause you to need a bigger bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

is almost sickening in its stupidity.

Your required bankroll is a function of your win rate, standard deviation, and acceptable risk of ruin. Please, both of you, and anyone who believes either of these guys, pick up Mason's Gambling Theory and Other Topics.

[Homer]

If anyone is interested in actually understanding these calculations, check out BruceZ's posts in the Probability forum.

-- Homer

[Alobar]

Thanks for putting me in my place. I shall now attempt to go learn something