Bankroll for multitables?

[kem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Seems like everyone in this thread is making the assumption that adding additional tables has no effect on win rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody has said that.

Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you see that I never said that anyone said it? In fact, I said everyone assumed it. Do you see the difference between someone stating something, and someone assuming something? I assume you don't.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is, win rate decreases as number of concurrent tables increases. Given that, you do in fact need a bigger bankroll in order to play 4 tables at once. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Explain it to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't tell if you are serious or being facetious. Given the quality of your posts, I'll go with the former.

If player A has a win rate of 100BB/100, and player B has a win rate of 0.1BB/100, do you think they need the same bankroll requirements in order to both avoid losing their entire bankroll? Hopefully everyone can see that they do not have the same requirements. By the same token, someone with a win rate of 3BB/100 has different bankroll requirements as someone with a 2BB/100 win rate.

Now, imagine you can win 3BB/100 playing one table at once. Now what do you think your win rate is if you are playing 100 tables at once? If the answer is less than 3BB/100, then there is some decline as you concurrently add additional tables.

Now, combine the last 2 paragraphs, and you should be able to see that the bankroll requirements of the same player playing 4 tables as opposed to 1 are almost certainly not identical.

[AngryCola]

I'm serious about this.

If what you are saying is true (I have doubts), then everything I've ever read from the respected posters on 2+2 has been completely wrong.

If that's the case, I seriously need to reconsider the advice I've been taking.

[bonanz]

[ QUOTE ]

If your win-rate goes from 3BB/100 at 2 tables to 2.5BB/100 at 4-tables then naturally this could effect your bankroll as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

bob

if you add more tables but your "true" winrate drops slightly, the extra hands per unit of time should more than make up for it as far as hourly earn, hence the whole idea behind multitabling. If adding extra tables hurts your play (actual hourly winrate) then it defeats the purpose.

If your winrate drops any while multitabling it's not due to any increased variance, but to the quality of your play declining slightly because of increased frequency of decision making, passing on small edges for the sake of waiting for larger ones, miscick errors etc.

edited to bold

[kem]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm serious about this.

If what you are saying is true (I have doubts), then everything I've ever read from the respected posters on 2+2 has been completely wrong.

If that's the case, I seriously need to reconsider the advice I've been taking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your risk of losing your bankroll is a function of your win rate and your variance. If you assume that neither of these changes as you add more tables, then your bankroll requirements do not change. I think what you're referring to is that respected posters have said that their win rates and variance do not change significantly when adding more tables, so their bankroll requirements do not change. What I was pointing out is that this is not necessarily true for all people, and I am highly skeptical of anyone who claims that they can play 8 tables as effectively as they can play 1. Maybe what they mean is that when they play 1 table they have 7 IE windows open and are surfing, so adding more poker tables and losing browser windows has no effect on their game. I think that if an 8-tabler were forced to sit down and concentrated on one single game, they would have a higher win rate than they do on 8 concurrently... obviously this is a point of debate, depends on the player, yada yada yada. And it also depends on what you view as a bankroll change. I was being somewhat anal -- maybe bankroll requirements jump from 300BB to 310BB as you add another table. Who knows.. depends completely on the player. If posters out there feel their game doesn't suffer and they can add more tables with no bankroll changes, then great. My only point was that before you jump in and blindly believe that you can add additional tables without more bankroll, you should be confident that your win rate and variance are not affected by adding more tables..

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I think what you're referring to is that respected posters have said that their win rates and variance do not change significantly when adding more tables, so their bankroll requirements do not change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, no.
They all mentioned their winrate dropping.

[ QUOTE ]
My only point was that before you jump in and blindly believe that you can add additional tables without more bankroll, you should be confident that your win rate and variance are not affected by adding more tables..

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much everyone I've seen has a lower winrate when multitabling. They mentioned it in posts explaining why you don't need a larger bankroll for playing more tables.

I'm shocked by how murky this issue seems to be to some of you all the sudden. I thought it was settled long ago. I'm dead serious when I say that I will have to reconsider almost everything about the way I play poker if it turns out one needs a larger bankroll for multitabling.

[kem]

[ QUOTE ]
if you add more tables but your "true" winrate drops slightly, the extra hands per unit of time should more than make up for it as far as hourly earn, hence the whole idea behind multitabling. If adding extra tables hurts your play (actual hourly winrate) then it defeats the purpose.

If your winrate drops any while multitabling it's not due to any increased variance, but to the quality of your play declining slightly because of increased frequency of decision making, passing on small edges for the sake of waiting for larger ones, miscick errors etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right -- this is dead on. A lot of multi-tablers realize they are giving up on winrate, but on the flipside they are making more since they are seeing many more hands/hr. Can't confuse $/hr with BB/100. Your bankroll requirements should be based on your multi-tabling win rate if you are multi-tabling.. and so any one-tabler looking to multi-table should realize this and shouldn't base bankroll requirements on their one-table win rate.

[Brian]

Most 2+2 advice that I have read regarding multiple table bankrolls (and the advice I have given myself) is that theoretically you need the same bankroll as you would playing 1 table, but in actuality you need a slightly bigger bankroll because your winrate is sure to be reduced, thus producing a higher standard deviation and the need for a larger bankroll.

You also need a larger bankroll if you are going to be playing a *lot* of tables at once. Let's say you are playing 12 tables of 2/4. A bankroll of $1200 (300BB) would allow you to buy-in for only $100 (25bb) at each table. This leaves you no money to rebuy at ANY of your tables should you go on a losing streak at one of the tables. I personally like to have at least 2 extra buy-ins ready to go per site (4 tables), and I leave another 2 buy-ins in Neteller.

I would advise Dariel86 to have a much larger bankroll than the typical 300bb if he is considering 4-tabling 2/4, especially if he is also new to the 2/4 limit. Of course, not even 300bb is required if he is willing to move down after some losses.

-Brian

[kem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think what you're referring to is that respected posters have said that their win rates and variance do not change significantly when adding more tables, so their bankroll requirements do not change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, no.
They all mentioned their winrate dropping.

[/ QUOTE ]

But do they "change significantly".. ? If they go from 3BB/100 to 1BB/100, their bankroll requirements should certainly change. If they go from 3BB/100 to 2.75BB/100, then probably not.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My only point was that before you jump in and blindly believe that you can add additional tables without more bankroll, you should be confident that your win rate and variance are not affected by adding more tables..

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much everyone I've seen has a lower winrate when multitabling. They mentioned it in posts explaining why you don't need a larger bankroll for playing more tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please show me posts where posters explain that a lower win rate does not mean a bigger bankroll is needed.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
You also need a larger bankroll if you are going to be playing a *lot* of tables at once. Let's say you are playing 12 tables of 2/4. A bankroll of $1200 (300BB) would allow you to buy-in for only $100 (25bb) at each table. This leaves you no money to rebuy at ANY of your tables should you go on a losing streak at one of the tables

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a given, but it was worth pointing out.

[xerxesthegod]

The last post is actually the best on this thread. Indeed your 300BB doesn't keep you from going bust. It gives you a decent chance of not going broke when you begin and in case you go broke it's probably when you begin playing (I think the chance for you to bust is 0.5%)because the more you play the more your bankroll increases and your chances to go broke get lower. When you multitable your winrate decrases so you increase your chances of going broke compared to a situation when you play a single table with a higher winrate.(Of course here the variable is not the time it's the quantity of the hands you play).