how does standard deviation change when increasing number of tables?

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
No. Your standard deviation per hour increases when you play multiple tables.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not being a math type I still would have to agree this staement based soley on experience. If the std deviation for one game was the same as the standard deviation for multiple gamse wouldn't one expect the swings to be the same or at least very close. Experience tells us (me) that this is not the case. The swings in multiple games are much greater than for one game.

i would really like to see you, pzhon, elaborate on this point. I've always thought that the bankroll requirements for playing multiple games simultaneusly must be much higher (mathematically) than that for one. I believe that the purpose of bankroll requirements is to ensure to some degree of confidence that a player does not go broke over x number of hands. If that is the case then it seems that the bankroll requirements should not be different for one game vs multiple games. The problem is that is that if 4 people played simultaneously wouldn't each have the same bankroll requirement. Consequently qouldn't the bankroll for the group need to be four times that of the individuals requirement to ensure the group did not go broke. I believe that this is the case but I trust that you have a beter explanation.

Vince

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that is that if 4 people played simultaneously wouldn't each have the same bankroll requirement. Consequently qouldn't the bankroll for the group need to be four times that of the individuals requirement to ensure the group did not go broke.

[/ QUOTE ]

They only each have the same bankroll requirement if they do not pool their bankrolls and share their winnings. If they pool their bankrolls and share their winnings, then for a given risk of going broke, the group only needs the same bankroll as any one individual would need playing alone. This is the principle by which blackjack teams operate.

If 4 players pool their bankrolls, with each contributing equally to the team bankroll, then each member can play at 4 times the stakes than he could by himself, as if he had the whole bankroll at his disposal, and enjoy 4 times the win rate, while the team would have the same risk of ruin as any individual player had when they each played alone with their own bankroll at 1/4 the stakes.

Conversely, a team of 4 can play with the same bankroll as any one individual player at the same stakes, and each of the 4 players would have the same win rate as 1 player alone, while the team would have the same risk of ruin as the lone player. This should be clear by considering that the team of 4 is equivalent to a single player playing 4 times as fast, and your risk of ruin has nothing to do with how fast you play.

See this post and its associated links for a discussion about multi-tabling and bankroll.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. Your standard deviation per hour increases when you play multiple tables.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not being a math type I still would have to agree this staement based soley on experience. If the std deviation for one game was the same as the standard deviation for multiple gamse wouldn't one expect the swings to be the same or at least very close. Experience tells us (me) that this is not the case. The swings in multiple games are much greater than for one game.

i would really like to see you, pzhon, elaborate on this point. I've always thought that the bankroll requirements for playing multiple games simultaneusly must be much higher (mathematically) than that for one. I believe that the purpose of bankroll requirements is to ensure to some degree of confidence that a player does not go broke over x number of hands. If that is the case then it seems that the bankroll requirements should not be different for one game vs multiple games. The problem is that is that if 4 people played simultaneously wouldn't each have the same bankroll requirement. Consequently qouldn't the bankroll for the group need to be four times that of the individuals requirement to ensure the group did not go broke. I believe that this is the case but I trust that you have a beter explanation.

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree for most people, your SD will go down as you increase tables online. Let's say I am single tabling NL 25 on party. I will be completely focused on each player and make the correct move at least as seen in my eyes almost all of the time and hardly leave any money on the table.

As I add let's say 7 more tables of NL 25. I am mainly looking to exploit the general weakness's of opponents in NL 25 and I can just 8-10 table it with playing only pocket pair's and AK with an occassional other hand in the blinds. My standard deviation for this type of play will probably be lower than my SD for the first style.

When some people get really good at multi-tabling, you can start to play more hands for more profit in these games. The addition to PT, gametime+, etc. has helped a lot in this area. So for some people, play can remain vastly similar except for the extra information you will be missing through multi-tabling/

I've always thought that the bankroll requirements for playing multiple games simultaneusly must be much higher (mathematically) than that for one. I believe that the purpose of bankroll requirements is to ensure to some degree of confidence that a player does not go broke over x number of hands. If that is the case then it seems that the bankroll requirements should not be different for one game vs multiple games. The problem is that is that if 4 people played simultaneously wouldn't each have the same bankroll requirement. Consequently qouldn't the bankroll for the group need to be four times that of the individuals requirement to ensure the group did not go broke. I believe that this is the case but I trust that you have a beter explanation.

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory, purely in term of STD, 4 or more players of equal ability could use the same bankroll to survive. Lets say a bankroll is 300BB. Each day they split it up and go to work with 75 BB each. When one loses, another is winning, and when one player swings through 75 BB, the money is replaced from one of the winners. This is in effect what players do when they 'borrow'.

The odds of the 4 players in this vacuum going broke is exactly the same as one player.

Where the theory falls apart is at the end of the month when everyones rent comes due.