Re: Bankroll Mgt & Multi-tabling
 

[ QUOTE ]


Okay, so that makes more intuitive sense to me. So any advice on how I adjust my bankroll requirements. Is it as simple as 25% drop in win rate = 25% increase in bank roll required? Also, how big of a sample size would you like to have ideally before you trust your win rate stat?

BTW - I'm not really thinking of 12 tabling. Anything over about 4 tables and I get very stupid, very quickly!

[/ QUOTE ]

One factor that no one seems to ever bring up is that when you're multi-tabling, especially 6max, you're not just playing poker, you're scouting as well. Often one of your tables has a few good players and one fish. When that fish leaves, the table suddenly isn't juicy. So, you have to go looking for another one. Scouting, at least in my experience, can be very distracting, and your play can occasionally suffer.

This is why I believe multi-tabling bankroll requirements should be considerably greater.

Re: Bankroll Mgt & Multi-tabling
 

Will you ever be in a position to add money to your bankroll from your pocket? If so, don't get so hung up on bankroll requirements.

Start at a limit equal to 1/30th your roll. If you lose 6-8 buyins, drop down.

If you have a one-time amount to play with, and if you lose you will quit poker, then be more conservative.

Re: Bankroll Mgt & Multi-tabling
 

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I always assumed that the bankroll guidelines were for live or single table poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Multitabling is like playing on a site where the hands are dealt faster. Your risk of ruin depends on your win rate per 100 hands and your standard deviation per 100 hands. If these don't change, your rational bankroll requirements don't change. Most people do find a significant drop in win rate when they play a lot of tables, but this varies from player to player, and it is the drop in win rate which means you need a larger bankroll, not the fact that you are playing multiple tables.

If your win rate drops a huge amount, you may want to reconsider playing so many tables. Some players who are 12-tabling have win rates much less than 1/3 of what is sustainable while 4-tabling, and play shorter sessions, and stunt their growth by playing mindlessly. Of course, some players are able to play well on remarkably many tables.

[ QUOTE ]
So extreme example...you have 20 buy-ins and you are 20 tabling. Your whole roll is in play. Winning player, not tilting, blah, blah, blah.

Everyone is okay with this? Just curious?

[/ QUOTE ]
Those who blindly follow an arbitrary percentage may freak out. Those who know the math and have experience playing shouldn't see a big problem with it, although not being able to rebuy may be inconvenient.

When you play one table, you will typically lose all of the money you have in play every few hundred hands on average. (When you have 100 BB or less, it is more frequent. When you have 200 BB, it is much less frequent.) When you play many tables, it is extremely unlikely that you will lose everything on every table simultaneously. The odds against it grow exponentially. I have never been stacked on 4 tables at the same time.

Obviously, if you have your whole bankroll in play, it will be inconvenient if you want to top up the amount you have on a table, or if you get stacked at a soft table and want to rebuy. You may have to cut the number of tables you are playing for logistical reasons. Rational bankroll managment is about preventing the disaster of going broke, not the inconvenience of dropping from 20 tables to 16 tables.

One minor factor is that you are a bit more vulnerable to power failures and dropped connections when you play many tables. However, this is normally a very tiny component of your variance.