Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > General Gambling > Probability

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-15-2005, 09:44 PM
GTSamIAm GTSamIAm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 523
Default Multitabling Risk of Ruin

How does multi-tabling affect your risk of ruin and change the bankroll size you need?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-16-2005, 12:27 AM
llamaoo7 llamaoo7 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6
Default Re: Multitabling Risk of Ruin

It obviously increases your risk of ruin and size of the bankroll needed depending on the level and your table selection, how you handle multitabling, if you bother with reads, how many tables you play..this question just seems way too general to give an exact answer.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-16-2005, 01:30 AM
topspin topspin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 737
Default Re: Multitabling Risk of Ruin

[ QUOTE ]
How does multi-tabling affect your risk of ruin and change the bankroll size you need?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems to me the additional risk would be pretty minimal as long as you're not playing more tables than you can deal with. Your win rate will take a hit since your reads suffer a bit, but unless you're going nuts with adding tables I doubt it's a very significant factor.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-16-2005, 04:39 AM
pzhon pzhon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Default Re: Multitabling Risk of Ruin

As long as your play does not degrade, and you have enough money to put on each table, your bankroll requirements are unchanged. It also doesn't change your bankroll requirements to play on a site that deals 80 hands per hour instead of 50, or to play 5 hour sessions instead of 2 hour sessions. You just get the results faster.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-16-2005, 04:53 PM
llamaoo7 llamaoo7 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6
Default Re: Multitabling Risk of Ruin

[ QUOTE ]
It also doesn't change your bankroll requirements to play on a site that deals 80 hands per hour instead of 50, or to play 5 hour sessions instead of 2 hour sessions. You just get the results faster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is isn't a question of how many hands/hour you can play. Would you rather play two tables having to keep track of 18 other players (assuming you actually get reads on players) that are averaging 40/hour or play at a table averaging 80/hour where you only have to keep track of 9 people? I just think when you have to pay attention to more people (not necessarially playing more hands) your reads will be weaker and you will miss some plays. I'm not saying if you two table you should have a 600BB bankroll vs 300 for single, I'm just saying in theory, you will probably hit bigger and faster downswings, which would indicate you should have a slightly larger bankroll.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-16-2005, 05:33 PM
pzhon pzhon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Default Re: Multitabling Risk of Ruin

[ QUOTE ]
I just think when you have to pay attention to more people (not necessarially playing more hands) your reads will be weaker and you will miss some plays.

[/ QUOTE ]
Other people say that when they play multiple tables, they play better because they are not tempted to play too many hands out of boredom.

[ QUOTE ]
It obviously increases your risk of ruin and size of the bankroll needed

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. There is no mathematical reason to require a larger bankroll while multitabling if your win rate and standard deviation stay the same.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just saying in theory, you will probably hit bigger and faster downswings, which would indicate you should have a slightly larger bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. You will hit the same downswings faster. This may make them easier to notice, but you do not need a larger bankroll.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-16-2005, 08:44 PM
llamaoo7 llamaoo7 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6
Default Re: Multitabling Risk of Ruin

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just think when you have to pay attention to more people (not necessarially playing more hands) your reads will be weaker and you will miss some plays.

[/ QUOTE ]
Other people say that when they play multiple tables, they play better because they are not tempted to play too many hands out of boredom.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you saying if you multitabled 25/50 NL you would have a the same risk of ruin and downswings? I guess if you played that game without reads (and if you do, I'd like to play you sometime) or if you can keep the same reads and memory with double the people (then I don't want to play with you) then yes, it would be the same. Effectively shooting down this point and generalizing everyone as playing without reads (or being able to play and get the same reads as if they were one tabling), you destroyed the rest of my points which is why I pointed out in my first post that this question is entirely too broad. You seem to be applying this information strictly to games where reads are not that important at all. I was just saying this in theory and you brought about a fact that isn't necessarially true with everyone. Some people actually play better at one table who know how to squeeze out extra bets in situations that would be overlooked in multitabling (probably an extra .04BB/100 hands in those small situations). Yes the difference is incredibly small, but I believe IMHO that there is a greater chance, no matter how slight it is.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-16-2005, 10:39 PM
pzhon pzhon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Default Re: Multitabling Risk of Ruin

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no mathematical reason to require a larger bankroll while multitabling if your win rate and standard deviation stay the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you saying if you multitabled 25/50 NL you would have a the same risk of ruin and downswings?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm making a mathematical assertion. The same bankroll formula applies to playing one table and multitabling:

adequate bankroll = c * standard deviation^2 / win rate

where c is a number that depends on your risk tolerance and ability to move down to lower stakes if you hit a bad streak. Most people seem comfortable using a value of c between 2 and 4. Note that this formula does not involve the number of tables you are playing.

You seem to be arguing that this answer to the original poster is meaningless, since your win rate might change, and I'm not guessing how your win rate changes. I disagree. Each person can test this for himself, and people have reported many different results.

[ QUOTE ]
I pointed out in my first post that this question is entirely too broad.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it is not, and I gave an informative answer.

If you find you are having much larger downswings while multitabling (or playing shorthanded), this is an indication that your win rate is lower. However, this is not the case for everyone.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-17-2005, 03:24 AM
Chipp Leider Chipp Leider is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 22
Default Re: Multitabling Risk of Ruin

Check out this article from CP by Dan Kimberg. I have some minor semantic problems w/ it, but otherwise its a good article.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.