Hypothetical question

[Guernica4000]

This is just a hypothetical situation for the purpose of discussion only.

There are 4 winning players of equal ability and they each have $2,000 to contribute to a collective BR. Would these players be better off playing:

1) multi-tabling at 3/6 for 6 hours each, 24 hours total?

2) multi-tabling at 12/24 (can be read 10/20 or 15/30) for 1.5 hours each, 6 hours total?

If number 2 is the better choice, why aren’t there more poker teams that could combine a number of small bankrolls in order to play higher limits?

Thoughts?

[Onaflag]

Are these four equally talented players proven winners at the higher stakes? It seems to me that your theory might not work because winners at 3/6 aren't necessarily winners at 10/20.

Onaflag..........

[Guernica4000]

For the purpose of this discussion let's say they are proven winners at the higher stakes but due to individually low BR they play at the 3/6 level.

The jump could also be less let's say 3 players have a $3,000 BR and they can beat the 5/10 as well as the 15/30.

Which system would they be better off playing?

Or maybe the question should be:

Is there an advantage for a group of players with small bankrolls to pool their money and play at the highest level they can beat?

[Onaflag]

Okay, I'll bite again. I see a couple advantages to a poker tag-team. First, tilt would be less of a problem. If Player A took a horrendous beat, he would be replaced by Player B who has his emotions in check.

Second, the level of concentration would stay at peak levels. If the players rotated every 1.5 hours as you suggest, each player would have a 4.5 hour break between sessions.

Now that I think about it, I'm going off in the wrong direction. You may be thinking about having them multitable online simultaneously (that's a hard word to type) in which case the advantages I list would be irrelevant.

Onaflag..........

Not necessarily irrelevant, Onaflag. The advantage is still that its easier to stay fresh for 1.5h than for 6h.

[elmo]

If you are a significant winner at 15/30, you can build your own bankroll.

[ QUOTE ]

Or maybe the question should be:

Is there an advantage for a group of players with small bankrolls to pool their money and play at the highest level they can beat?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an advantage to pooling bankrolls: That's because pooled bankrolls correspond to smaller risks of ruin so you can safely play a larger stakes game. This allows them to get a better return on their money.

I don't know about poker, but this type of tactic is apparently quite popular for blackjack players.

That said, provided your advantage in BB/hour is constant, you're not getting any extra money by playing twice the stakes for half the time. Assuming that the higher-stakes games are tougher, the returns may frequently be better at a lower table. Keep in mind that the return is: BB/Hour * $/BB. So if you can get twice the advantage at 6/12 than at 12/24, you should not be playing 12/24.

[Lash]

Reasons why not many do this successfully, or even attempt it in the first place:

-There are not that many qualified players (Really good players)
-Poker Ego… “I’m the best, I never would have lost 1.5 BB / 100 like Joe did yesterday.”


Really big reason…
Advanced players (shouldJ) have a mentality of “As soon as I stop learning, I start losing”… Making poker a team sport tends to take away from the value of lessons learned. Since your team can absorb a lot of mistakes, you may not even see them (missed opportunity). If your team does catch a mistake, you may try to fix it…but is it fixed in a meaningful way to a true individual competitor … Poker is after all one of the purest forms of individual sport.

If anyone out there is sitting there thinking: “all that matters is the bottom line… cash / money baby!”

I hate to tell you, but you are wrong…THINK ABOUT IT

[randomstumbl]

I think this hypothetical situation actually needs more details to be meaningful. What is an acceptable risk of ruin to the players? Is going broke acceptable? You're obviously not full time pros with a $2000 bankroll.

Right now, I play on a short roll for the limits I often play. I do this because I have a high risk tolerance and I don't think it's worth my time to grind out money at the lower limits. If I go broke, that's fine. I just won't play cards for a couple months.

So, I guess I'm going with answer C for me personally. Play 10/20 with $2000. There's a very real possibility of going broke; however, I'm in a situation where that is an acceptable risk.

In reality, I'd probably play 5/10 and take shots at 10/20 when it looked like a particularly soft game with 2k. Any comments on the sanity of my suggestion are appreciated.