Multitabling question

In theory, couldn't a winning poker player maintain the same average BB/100 rate playing less tables at a higher limit? For example 4 tabling 5/10 tables verse 8 tabling 2/4 tables? Granted, the players might be better at 5/10 than 2/4, but you could also pay better attention with less tables, and possibly play better.

Something has to be wrong with my theory or I'd think more people would do it.

[crunchy1]

The advantage in multitabling lies in increasing you winrate/hour - not winrate/# of hands. If you're making 1BB/100 @ 8-tabling 2/4 you'd need to make .8BB/100 @ 4-tabling 5/10. This will net you approximately the same hourly rate.

I think you're underestimating the difference in skill level though. Someone who's playing 8, 2/4 tables on autopilot has not developed the skills neccessary to beat 5/10 - regardless of how many tables they're playing. They may well be able to develop those skills - but it will not happen immediately. I also think that you need to take bankroll and variance into account.

Some players are just more comfortable grinding out the lower limits with a decent hourly rate, low ROR and low bankroll requirements. I think this sort of speaks to why "more people aren't doing it".

[djhoneybear]

One aspect to consider is the bankroll problems. Assuming you need 400xBB to cover all swings then if you 8 table at 2/4 you need 1600 per table for a total of 12800. If you want to 4 table 5/10 you need 4000 per table for a total of 16000. (Whatever numbers of BB you use - it always requires less of a bankroll for the lower tables). Of course the most obvious reason why this doesn't work is that 2/4 is a much easier game than 5/10 but lets assume you can average 2 BB per 100 at either limit - your variance is going to more stable with more tables.

[crunchy1]

Bankroll requirements are NOT dependant on the number of tables you play.

[damaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
One aspect to consider is the bankroll problems. Assuming you need 400xBB to cover all swings then if you 8 table at 2/4 you need 1600 per table for a total of 12800. If you want to 4 table 5/10 you need 4000 per table for a total of 16000. (Whatever numbers of BB you use - it always requires less of a bankroll for the lower tables). Of course the most obvious reason why this doesn't work is that 2/4 is a much easier game than 5/10 but lets assume you can average 2 BB per 100 at either limit - your variance is going to more stable with more tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true at all. You need whatever bankroll requirements you need for the limit regardless. Now, if you always want to be able to 4-table, you need enough such that even after a 200BB downswing you can still a full buy-in at all 4 tables, but you don't need a 400BB per table bankroll. It should be pretty logical why.

You don't need 400 BB per table, your statement about more tables decreasing your variance is correct. By playing more tables, you are essentially playing more hands per hour. That's all. If you were sitting at some amazingly fast single table, would you need a larger bankroll? No.

-Shaggy

I think you're overestimating the skill difference in 5/10 as opposed to 2/4. Granted, I haven't played 2/4 in a while, but I play 5/10 regularly. I can tell you that the 5/10 game on party isn't really hard. There are still a good number of live ones out there. Maybe not as many as 2/4, but certainly enough to find plenty of good games.

[oxymoron]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're overestimating the skill difference in 5/10 as opposed to 2/4. Granted, I haven't played 2/4 in a while, but I play 5/10 regularly. I can tell you that the 5/10 game on party isn't really hard. There are still a good number of live ones out there. Maybe not as many as 2/4, but certainly enough to find plenty of good games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been doing okay at it so it can't be too tough. I suck.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're overestimating the skill difference in 5/10 as opposed to 2/4.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not neccessarily contending that the overall skill level is that much different. I'm stating more that someone playing 8 tables is probably doing more "nut-peddling" than "poker playing" and it's irrelevant how many tables you're playing at a higher level. You need to develop some skills at some point to go beyond making the standard plays over and over.

I'm also suggesting that for someone to make this move immediately you're going to need to have been a pretty significant winner at the 2/4 level. I have a hard time believing someone 8-tabling 2/4 @ 1BB/100 will move to 4-tabling 5/10 @ .8BB/100. I have an easier time believing that someone 8-tabling 2/4 @ 2bb/100 will move to 5/10 and make 1.6BB/100.