PokerTips.org Forums

PokerTips.org Forums (http://www.pokertips.org/forums/index.php)
-   Limit Hold'em and Miscellaneous Strategy (http://www.pokertips.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=60)
-   -   Multiple tables bankroll question (http://www.pokertips.org/forums/showthread.php?t=27178)

PockerNines Jul 26, 2005 11:25pm

Multiple tables bankroll question
 
If $300 is a sufficient bankroll to play 0.5/1, than would you need $1200 to play four tables at once?

xenthebrain Jul 26, 2005 11:36pm

No, variance has the same amplitudes with 4 tables (as long as you play the same game than before on each of the 4 tables).
Only the varianz will come in shorter time.

It might look like this.

One table
Money/$
|--------------------------/
|---------/\-------------/
|------- /---\----------/
|------/------\-------/
|---- /---------\----/
|---/-------------\/
|--/
|/-------------------------------time/h

4 tables
Money/$
|-----------------/
|------/\--------/
|-----/--\------/
|----/----\----/
|---/------\--/
|--/--------\/
|-/
|/----------------------------------------time/h

but if you don't view it with dollars and time, but with dollars and hands it will be the excat same graph.
You don't need a higher bankroll to multitable, as long you play as good with them as you do with just one.

the_fox31 Jul 26, 2005 11:44pm

OK.

That was damn fancy.

PockerNines Jul 27, 2005 2:42am

damn fancy indeed, perfect reply. thank you

killcrazy Jul 27, 2005 12:19pm

nice graph.

though you are getting through far more hands/hr which means a bad session can do serious damage to a 300 BB roll. a bad week can more than halve it.

Kc

xenthebrain Jul 27, 2005 2:45pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by killcrazy
though you are getting through far more hands/hr which means a bad session can do serious damage to a 300 BB roll. a bad week can more than halve it.

Like I said, there is no difference if you lose it all in 8 hours one tabling or in 2 hours 4 tabling. No difference except the time.
The standard deviation is the same and the money/hand graph is the same.

I know you are no math kiddie, so trust me on this one :P

If it's not the cards who run bad, but you just play bad and you don't quit it's your fault... Then 4 tables is more dangerous.
But I think people are more likely to tilt when playing just one table, since it's more boring and you don't move on so quick.

killcrazy Jul 27, 2005 5:08pm

no there is a huge difference.

your risk of ruin is far higher if you're playing more hands. Your risk of ruin is never 0, so the longer you run for the greater it will be. Speaking psychologically you're in a position to do far more damage to your roll in terms of tilt or plain having an off night.

You never want more than oh lets say 50% of your total roll in play. So if you're 4 tabling limit that means your roll should never drop below 200 big bets (which means your roll should be 500 big bets, as this is on top of the DSK300) and I come to this number through a complicated system of peristalsis and prehensilisation.

Kc

xenthebrain Jul 27, 2005 5:33pm

No, your risk of ruin is not higher with 4 tables.

Since risk of ruin is calculated risk of ruin=e^(-BR(2HR/SDē))
(HR is hourly rate per table, SD the standard deviation and BR the bankroll)

There is just no difference in playing 1000 hands in 3 days or in one. You have the same standard deviation and the same hourly rate per table and thus the same risk of ruin.

If you tilt and don't stop the dropdown seems bigger, since you would need to tilt 4 times playing one table for the same outcome.
But I think that you tilt less with 4 tables since you move on quicker and that evens out this factor.
Also, who tilts and doesn't stop is a poor player and has a relatively high risk of ruin.

Risk of ruin is not affected by time. If you say that it increases with more hands you play it still doesn't matter if you play one or 4 tables.
If you go broke after 10,000 hands you will go broke after 10,000 hands just one tabling, too but after a longer period of time.

So, I would now like to see you difficult system.

PockerNines Jul 27, 2005 9:25pm

I knew it was a good question... :D

the_fox31 Jul 27, 2005 9:27pm

So would I. Interestingly enough, it seems to involve the movement of muscles.

But if you have 300 BB, can't you only bring 60 BB to each table if you are, say 5 tabling?

Oh wait! I get it! Even if you lose 60 BB and "go broke" at one table, you would have lost those 60 anyways had you only beeen playing 1 table.

It doesn't matter where you've put your bankroll, as long as your play hasn't changed, your variance won't either.


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:45am.

vBulletin 3.7.4 Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.