Bankroll Mgt & Multi-tabling

[hockeyav]

As long as you are still a winning player 12-tabling, it doesn't affect your bankroll guidelines.

[sapol]

[ QUOTE ]
As long as you are still a winning player 12-tabling, it doesn't affect your bankroll guidelines.

[/ QUOTE ]

depends.

if you play a high variance game and you tend to tilt then I suggest having a bigger than usual roll for 12 tabling.

[eMedia]

Generally people play tighter when multitabling so it's fine

[yjbrewer]

I usually 4 table and it evens out. I have bad runs at one or two tables and good runs on the other 2. it would be nice to have good runs at all 4 for once.

[CDAC]

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

[pzhon]

[ 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.

[Fielding lol]

Most winning players will lower their PTBB/100 while multitabling, however, they are getting in many more hands and make more money in a short period of time because of this.

You need to analyze the difference in your PTBB/100 when multitabling and when you're not. The amount you increase your bankroll for multitabling should be directly related to how much your win rate is lowered due to multitabling.

Something else worth mentioning, if multitabling is causing a significant drop in your win rate make sure that you are easing in to it and working up tables as you feel comfortable with them.

[raze]

^ ^ great post. Variance is a function of winrate, not of how tight you play, not of 'high variance style', etc. Playing 12 tables will result in a lower PTBB/100 than playing 1 or 2 tables, guaranteed. Lower winrate = more variance.

[CDAC]

[ QUOTE ]
Most winning players will lower their PTBB/100 while multitabling, however, they are getting in many more hands and make more money in a short period of time because of this.

You need to analyze the difference in your PTBB/100 when multitabling and when you're not. The amount you increase your bankroll for multitabling should be directly related to how much your win rate is lowered due to multitabling.

Something else worth mentioning, if multitabling is causing a significant drop in your win rate make sure that you are easing in to it and working up tables as you feel comfortable with them.

[/ 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!

[Fielding lol]

From what I understand, you should increase your BR requirements inversely.

For example, the general consensus for BR is to have 20 buy-ins. Let's say your normal win rate is 6BB/hr when you're single tabling. When you switch to Multitabling you now run at 4BB/hr and are now 4/6ths or 2/3rds of your normal win rate. Now, apply that inversely to your 20 buy-in rule..

3/2 x 20 = 30 buy ins.

As far as finding your actual win rate, here is an excellent post that talks about this.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...=8#Post12784921