Bankroll needed on 1 table vs 2 tables.

[HavanaBanana]

Lets say you in playing 20-40 online 1 table need a bankroll of X to be 90% favorite not to get broke being a 1BB/hr winning player.

Now lets imageing the same player playing 2 tables, at same speed, and also same winning rate per table per hour.
(I know some will say winrate per hour will go down per table, but forget that here.)

What will the new X be?

[Dynasty]

Why would your bankroll requirements change at all? A bankroll isn't dependent on how often you play.

[dr_mabuse]

hi havana,

i also think that there should be no change in bankroll requirements as long as there is no correlation between the play at the two tables and your expactation doesnt suffer from playing 2 tables. its like a random walk with a positive drift and playing 2 uncorrelated tables should be equal to simply playing twice as fast on 1 table (or twice as long) and therefore does not change the bankroll requirements.

just my thoughts..
bye
dr_mabuse

[NYplayer]

This is wrong. Just imagine you want to play 100 tables at once, should you still be alright with the same bankroll? Your bankroll should go up as the root of the number of tables you are playing. When you play two tables a the same time and you have the same expectation and SD at each. it's like you are playing a game that is twice the stakes but you get some diversification benefit from playing two games and the SD only goes up by the root. therefore you only need 1.4 times the bankroll and not double.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
This is wrong. Just imagine you want to play 100 tables at once, should you still be alright with the same bankroll? Your bankroll should go up as the root of the number of tables you are playing. When you play two tables a the same time and you have the same expectation and SD at each. it's like you are playing a game that is twice the stakes but you get some diversification benefit from playing two games and the SD only goes up by the root. therefore you only need 1.4 times the bankroll and not double.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I can see why this might seem correct mathematically, it really can't be common-sense wise. Clearly playing 2 15/30 tables for 2 hours a day is the same as playing 1 table for 4 hours a day. So unless you think a bankroll is playing-time dependent in some way, you can't need a bigger bankroll to play more tables.

[Barry]

This is a good point.

A don't know the math, but if you have a SD of x at 1 table, your standard deviation for 2 tables would be less than x. I'm just not sure that it the square root of x.

Where is Bruce Z when you need him?

[Paluka]

If your standard dev playing 1 table for 1 hour is $X, then playing 1 table for 2 hours or playing 2 tables for 1 hour each are both sqrt2 * $X.

[Homer]

What will the new X be?

X

-- Homer

[JayCo]

[ QUOTE ]
...unless you think a bankroll is playing-time dependent in some way, you can't need a bigger bankroll to play more tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. Bankroll requirements wouldn't change unless busting at one table of the 2 at any point is a concern, where you would be need to calculate ROR the total bankroll / number of tables and not the combined bankroll between the 2. Not that it matters, but I would think the ROR would be lower than that straight calculation suggests, since you can rebalance if one table gets low.

I think the old X is X Classic, New X is just X now. And Clear + Gravy = Clear Gravy.

J

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Just imagine you want to play 100 tables at once, should you still be alright with the same bankroll?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I think so. Your bankroll requirements are not dependent on how often you play. If you play at 100 tables, you are just as likely to go bust after playing X number of hands as you are playing 1 table playing the same X number of hands.

The only difference is that playing at 100 tables will get you to X number of hands 100x faster.