Multitable Bankroll?

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]
I still think its to reduce risk of ruin, why you need a bigger br multitabling than singletabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your winrate probably suffers a bit, which is what increases your risk of ruin. If you had the exact same winrate for 4 tables as 1 table, there would be absolutely no reason for larger bankroll requirements - you're just playing your hands faster.

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/multiMedia.php

listen in to podcast #5 with Howard Lederer on Your online poker bankroll.

I liked what he talked about there.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, Howard Lederer is just dead wrong about needing more (he says sqrt(#tables) as much) to multitable. The number of hands you play per hour doesn't matter, either. This has been covered many times before.

[/ QUOTE ]

My God. I've given him the benefit of the doubt that all the errors on his video and odds tables were due to carelessness, but this tears it.

[NicGreek]

I guess i have to listen to that one again then [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[kimchi]

since you'd be playing more hands per hour, downswings will be shorter in duration, but not necessarily in severity.

Your BB/100 will probably decrease slightly though because of poorer reads and the need for quicker marginal decisions.

[eleventy]

[ QUOTE ]
the only reason i can see for needing a larger BR for multi-tabling might be so that you don't have to cash out of one table in order to buy into another, for example:

say your BR = 2k, you buy into two tables for 1k each, you bust on one table and double up on the second table, now your BR is unchanged at 2k but you cannot buy into a second table.

in this scenario you could of course lift from the 2k table and buy into two separate tables for 1k... having a larger BR just avoids this inconvenience (and, for NL games, this potential advantage).

[/ QUOTE ]



If you have all your bankroll at 2 tables you are playing to high...

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the only reason i can see for needing a larger BR for multi-tabling might be so that you don't have to cash out of one table in order to buy into another, for example:

say your BR = 2k, you buy into two tables for 1k each, you bust on one table and double up on the second table, now your BR is unchanged at 2k but you cannot buy into a second table.

in this scenario you could of course lift from the 2k table and buy into two separate tables for 1k... having a larger BR just avoids this inconvenience (and, for NL games, this potential advantage).

[/ QUOTE ]



If you have all your bankroll at 2 tables you are playing to high...

[/ QUOTE ]

While his example was an extreme one, there are some people playing upwards of ten tables. Ten tables of LHE at 25 BB/table is 250BB, and no matter how well you play you will have to rebuy once in awhile.

[bigpooch]

In a word, "No!". If your winrate per hand and standard
deviation per hand is the same if you play N tables as
compared to playing just one table, your bankroll required
for your risk of ruin is IDENTICAL. On the other hand,
there are practical aspects if N is large; for example,
suppose you know for the game that you are playing, you are
using your entire BR (or almost all of it) on several tables
(but still are comfortable with the chance of ruin), you
will want a bit more just in case you may lose your chips at
one or more tables (you want to reload).

In practice, the two parameters will NOT be the same when
you play multiple tables: you make an occasional mouse
error, you lose focus on the aberrant betting of one of your
several opponents, yada yada yada. Still, if your winrate
doesn't suffer significantly by playing N tables as opposed
to (N-1) tables, you DO NOT need a significantly bigger
bankroll. For most people, to go from 1 table to 2 tables,
the extra bankroll would be close to zero; on the other
hand, to go from 1 table to 8 tables, many people would have
to increase their bankroll at least 50% (and some people
would now start to have a negative winrate even if they have
a positive one for playing one table).

A big drawback that some people don't mention if you just
play one site and multitable is that if you play just one
or two limits, and when you are adding your fifth, sixth
or seventh table, you are typically not adding a table that
gives you a very good winrate. Winrates at tables will
clearly vary, and you prefer to play at the "best" three or
four tables for the limits you usually play at.

AMAZING!
--------

What I find astounding is (if it is indeed true) that Howard
Lederer believes otherwise! Apparently, he doesn't have a
theoretical understanding of bankroll requirements.