|
|
#1
09-16-2006, 02:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
does playing at 2 tables mean 1/2 the variance?
I play one table middle limit holdem and probably only play 60-70K hands per year. I have made money the last 2 years but the downswings are driving me nuts. Is playing two tables the answer?
|
|
#2
09-16-2006, 02:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: does playing at 2 tables mean 1/2 the variance?
Well, what it will mean is that you will be playing more hands in the same amount of time. You will likely suffer more downswings, more upswings. And overall your variance will be a smaller component of your annual result, doubling the hands should make variance about one half of square root two as large per hand and the square root two larger in aggregate.
To my mind, the more important question is, will your winrate be positively affected by doubling the number of hands per hour? If this is the case I'd reccomend taking a second table.
|
|
#3
09-16-2006, 01:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: does playing at 2 tables mean 1/2 the variance?
[ QUOTE ]
I play one table middle limit holdem and probably only play 60-70K hands per year. I have made money the last 2 years but the downswings are driving me nuts. Is playing two tables the answer? [/ QUOTE ] In the strict sense of "variance", meaning mean squared deviation, if you play two tables having identical game conditions at once you will experience twice the variance. Variance is the square of your expected swings, though. If you play two tables at once, your hourly win rate will double, and the expected size of upswings and downswings -- your hourly standard deviation -- will go up by a factor of sqrt(2) = 1.414... In other words, if you have the same win rate at 5-10 and 10-20 of 1BB/100 and the same standard deviation over a hundred hands of 12BB, your hourly earn will be the same by playing two tables of 5-10 as it would single-tabling 10-20, but your hourly swings will be smaller by a factor of sqrt(2).
|
|
#5
09-18-2006, 12:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: does playing at 2 tables mean 1/2 the variance?
Straght theory: Not sure how to say this correctly, but playing 2 tables for 6 hours will increase the chances of your result being closer to your EV, but it will also increase the chances of a big win or loss. It has no effect on your varience per-hand. It has no effect on how likely you are to go broke. It should reduce the length of winning and losing streaks (2 weeks down to 1 week).
What you are thinking of is two poker players merging their bankrolls, and each playing a table resulting in the partnership playing 2 tables. Yes, that reduces your varience and reduces your changes of going bust. Practicallity: The chances of having say 4 of 5 table losses that make you feel ill is pretty small; thus playing 5 tables for 8 hours will drastically reduce how often you feel terrible afterwards. I think that's what you suggest you want. However, a few of those bad times will correspond to big losses. Multiple tables will also reduce the EV of each table since you aren't paying as good attention. It could also let you more easily detect a bad game (which are easy to see if yuou are playing 2 other good games), and thus this should improve your table selections some. I don't play online yet for a variety of reasons. But I'm pretty sure that few folks can handle more than 4 screens at a time. After that, its all a blur and your EV will drop drastically. - Louie
|
|
#7
09-18-2006, 01:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: does playing at 2 tables mean 1/2 the variance?
2 tables will get you to the long run twice as fast. The chance of being down will be lower given same EV on both tables (however the range of possible outcomes would be higher though).
Limit holdem especially short handed does tend to drive me insane either way.
|
|
#8
09-18-2006, 06:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: does playing at 2 tables mean 1/2 the variance?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't play online yet for a variety of reasons. [/ QUOTE ] Time to get with the program, sir. [/ QUOTE ] Not if he's got a casino nearby. There's no reason he needs to play online if he can beat the live games, which are much easier and a hell of a lot more fun.
|
|
#9
09-18-2006, 04:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: does playing at 2 tables mean 1/2 the variance?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I don't play online yet for a variety of reasons. [/ QUOTE ] Time to get with the program, sir. [/ QUOTE ] Not if he's got a casino nearby. There's no reason he needs to play online if he can beat the live games, which are much easier and a hell of a lot more fun. [/ QUOTE ] He is an expert player. I'm interested in getting his views on online play. Of course, it's his choice.
|
|
#10
09-18-2006, 05:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: does playing at 2 tables mean 1/2 the variance?
[ QUOTE ]
I don't play online yet for a variety of reasons. But I'm pretty sure that few folks can handle more than 4 screens at a time. After that, its all a blur and your EV will drop drastically. [/ QUOTE ] Not even close to true. If I have a good setup, I find it fairly easy to play 6 tables. It depends a lot on the person mostly. I know others who 12 table effectively and i know people who have trouble handling 2. [ QUOTE ] Not if he's got a casino nearby. There's no reason he needs to play online if he can beat the live games, which are much easier and a hell of a lot more fun. [/ QUOTE ] Except that you can potentially play about 20 times more hands an hour with a far better rake structure and no tips. You only have to be a marginal winner to completely crush your live results at comparable stakes.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
