This May Sound Pathetic, But I'm Desperate

[Acid_Knight 2]

Just wait for it. That's all I'm saying.

My argument was pretty thin so this isn't worth it.The whole joke is that I'll go 50 posts back and forth with you if I think you're really wrong in what you're saying, futilly trying to get you to admit it.As for this, I guess the point I was more trying to make is that your variance will be higher in an absolute sense in relation to your bankroll simply becuase you have 4x as much on the table at once and a bad hour can spiral out of control pretty fast.In terms of reaching the long run results faster, that's absolutely true. It's just that it's pretty damned hard to win or lose 4 buyins in an hour playing at a single table but it's really not uncommon to have that happen when 4 tabling. I guess that's what I'm trying to say.If you wanna multi table, you should have more buyins than if you're only playing one table.

[Acid_Knight 2]

See, the problem with this entire bankroll management and multitabling scheme is that it does not take into its calculations all the Deitys of the world. Buddhists may find success in their weak-tight approach to the game, but while they wait for their pocket pairs to blossom into ascended forms like sets and quads, a crusade is taking place from the Christianic aggressive style that is pushing TP/TK to it's limits. I mean, if Jesus died on the cross then why should A-K not be crucified? For on the next Sunday the hand will rise up from the drawing-dead to catch runner runners for full houses and all will be good. However, there are some faiths that believe that A-K is indeed a good prophet, but is not the true messiah. They can be found chasing club flushes since they believe that the shape most resembles the Star of David. However, the truest believers in the kamikaze art of aggrodonking believe that call is a forbidden word and will raise and re-raise anything all in for the sake of folding equity. They can be found shrieking and tongues with flipping as their 4 preflop bet suited connectors crash into A-A towers bringing them to a crumble. These followers believe it is deemed ok to sacrifice your pots odds in the holy chip waging war.

God is dead.Variance is its own master.You spent way too much time on that post, but I appreciate the effort.

[Temporary Nuts 1]

God is dead.Variance is its own master.You spent way too much time on that post, but I appreciate the effort.

You overestimate the time it takes my brain to spew out complete bullshit

[Tactical Bear 3]

My argument was pretty thin so this isn't worth it.The whole joke is that I'll go 50 posts back and forth with you if I think you're really wrong in what you're saying, futilly trying to get you to admit it.As for this, I guess the point I was more trying to make is that your variance will be higher in an absolute sense in relation to your bankroll simply becuase you have 4x as much on the table at once and a bad hour can spiral out of control pretty fast.In terms of reaching the long run results faster, that's absolutely true. It's just that it's pretty damned hard to win or lose 4 buyins in an hour playing at a single table but it's really not uncommon to have that happen when 4 tabling. I guess that's what I'm trying to say.If you wanna multi table, you should have more buyins than if you're only playing one table.

I will, too. Here, as well as in real life. My most common saying is, "Just say you're wrong. Just say it. Just say you're wrong."My point is only this:If per-hand winrates stay the same (which they don't, but it doesn't drop far enough to make that big of a difference for most competent players), variance will be less meaningful in any real sense. Playing more hands means you'll have fewer losing months, fewer losing weeks, fewer losing days, and even fewer losing HOURS. Every additional hand is a chance for us to tack on to our total win, and will bring us closer to the long-run. Playing 4 tables you might have an 8 hour stretch where you drop 7 buy-ins. Playing one table you might have a 4-day stretch where you drop 7 buy-ins. These are really the exact same thing. But when you're playing 4 tables, regression to the mean happens faster (on an hour-by-hour basis), so blips tend to "smooth out," and become less noticeable.

[mtdesmoines 3]

The whole joke is that I'll go 50 posts back and forth with you if I think you're really wrong in what you're saying, futilly trying to get you to admit it.

I will, too. Here, as well as in real life. My most common saying is, "Just say you're wrong. Just say it. Just say you're wrong."

We're so damned close.

[gfdsa146 0]

When I first deposited $50, I quickly took it to about $130 then started playing $0.10/0.25 and quickly lost $122, I then started grinding at $0.02/0.04 then ).05/0.10 & now ).10/0.25 and now I have $1125, this took about 4-5 months but I have a solid schooling now and will not move up a level unless Im confident Im crushing the game, not ure if that helps or offers inspiration

you are rocking BR. Well Done.

[Zach6668 513]

Wang is right.St.Dev per 100 hands, as we measure it in PT will be no different.Variance per hour, a relatively meaningless measurement in the age of multitabling, might change, or it might not.Multitabling, unless you suck balls and your winrate drops significantly, will not affect your variance.Seriously.

[Acid_Knight 2]

Wang is right.St.Dev per 100 hands, as we measure it in PT will be no different.Variance per hour, a relatively meaningless measurement in the age of multitabling, might change, or it might not.Multitabling, unless you suck balls and your winrate drops significantly, will not affect your variance.Seriously.

Fair enough. It's not Wang though.

[owise1 0]

Here's your answer read itAnd for good measure read this tooowise1

[danc1984 0]

Fair enough. It's not Wang though.

It fooled me as well, I thought it was Shimmering Wang as well until 5 minutes ago. It's not just the picture either, the style of writing is also quite similar.

[Snamuh 0]

It fooled me as well, I thought it was Shimmering Wang as well until 5 minutes ago. It's not just the picture either, the style of writing is also quite similar.

I had to look twice also. He didn't write Wang at the end at least.

[mln_falcon 0]

Fair enough. It's not Wang though.

It fooled me as well, I thought it was Shimmering Wang as well until 5 minutes ago. It's not just the picture either, the style of writing is also quite similar.

I had to look twice also. He didn't write Wang at the end at least.

lol

[Zach6668 513]

lol

indeed.

[Tactical Bear 3]

Fair enough. It's not Wang though.

It fooled me as well, I thought it was Shimmering Wang as well until 5 minutes ago. It's not just the picture either, the style of writing is also quite similar.

I had to look twice also. He didn't write Wang at the end at least.

What would give you guys that impression? Can't you see that I am a bear? And sporting a hip, natural-looking mustache? I look nothing like this "Wang" fellow you keep referring to. No, I really am me. I just assume everyone knows, since my "disguise" is so fucking obvious, but I suppose it could be a little confusing. I'm in hiding from somebody who knows me in real life, and knows my former handle. I figure this way she can't just google me and get a hit from posts I make in this forum, and that the change won't really affect anybody else.Regards,Wan-(ahem)BearPS- It's nice to know my voice is unique enough to be somewhat recognizable.

[danc1984 0]

Wowow. It really is Wang. My head hurts a little.

[MisterB 2]

No, I really am me.

Seriously? Never saw that one coming.

[Ouch-8s 4]

No, I really am me.

Nope.

[Ricer98 0]

Acid is 100% correct here.It's correct that playing multiple tables will lower variance if you are constantly making correct decisions. You can play 4x as many hands and therefore make 4x as many correct decision which will level out your variance. What people are over looking is that if you are playing 4 tables and not making correct decisions, or are on tilt, YOU WILL LOSE MONEY 4X AS FAST. I have had this happen to my self, take a couple beats at one table, then my play starts to deteriorate on the other 3. Playing multiple tables reduces variance if you are getting your money is an a 75-25 favorite 4 times as much. However, if your getting it in as a 25-75 underdog, its going to reduce the variance of you winning money and therefore you will lose more faster.

[Zach6668 513]

wtf

[Craigdog 0]

You overestimate the time it takes my brain to spew out complete bullshit

FLOL... quote of the day!!!

[Andromeda 0]

who is this Wang fellow and why should I care?

[mln_falcon 0]

Wang is dreamy

[antistuff 0]

As for this, I guess the point I was more trying to make is that your variance will be higher in an absolute sense in relation to your bankroll simply becuase you have 4x as much on the table at once and a bad hour can spiral out of control pretty fast.If you wanna multi table, you should have more buyins than if you're only playing one table.

no.

[Acid_Knight 2]

Acid is 100% correct here.

No, I was actually about 99% wrong. I just wasn't thinking about things properly. Zach and Tactical Bear are right.

no

Actually, I feel this point is very valid. Your per hand variance never changes regardless of how many tables you play. Your absolute variance however should be a bit higher becuase of the increased amount of money in play. I'm not talking long term, but I'm talking in any given hour or day, playing 4 tables, you can win or lose a larger amount of money simply as a product of having more money in play. I have to have the ability to win or lose more money becuase I have $800 (4-$200 NL tables) in play as opposed to $200.If you're in capable of losing 5 buyins in an hour at one table, but it can happen if you're 4-tabling, then I'm pretty sure my above statement has to be true. It's totally short run, but I am quite certain that few people will argue that you need a slightly larger bankroll to play 4 tables at once than you do to play one.

[Tactical Bear 3]

Playing multiple tables reduces variance if you are getting your money is an a 75-25 favorite 4 times as much. However, if your getting it in as a 25-75 underdog, its going to reduce the variance of you winning money and therefore you will lose more faster.

This isn't an issue of variance. The issue here is that you're a losing player. Your hourly rate will be magnified by four times if you're playing 4 times as many tables and 4 times as many hands, but your per-hand rate should stay the same (assuming you're not overtaxing yourself with the additional tables). If you're losing a dollar a hand, you'll still lose a dollar a hand when you play 4 tables instead of one, you'll just lose 400 dollars an hour instead of 100 dollars. This is NOT variance; this is just the correlation between volume and profit (loss).

who is this Wang fellow and why should I care?

I am-(ahem)HE is nobody. He offers very little of value, and does not have a mustache.Also, he's a faggot.

Wang is dreamy

No. A little bird tells me he's currently reading a poker forum in the computer lab instead of attending an environmental science lab. He is also going to get a B- in an Online Intro to Theatre class. He's a faggot.

No, I was actually about 99% wrong. I just wasn't thinking about things properly. Zach and Tactical Bear are right.Actually, I feel this point is very valid. Your per hand variance never changes regardless of how many tables you play. Your absolute variance however should be a bit higher becuase of the increased amount of money in play. I'm not talking long term, but I'm talking in any given hour or day, playing 4 tables, you can win or lose a larger amount of money simply as a product of having more money in play. I have to have the ability to win or lose more money becuase I have $800 (4-$200 NL tables) in play as opposed to $200.If you're in capable of losing 5 buyins in an hour at one table, but it can happen if you're 4-tabling, then I'm pretty sure my above statement has to be true. It's totally short run, but I am quite certain that few people will argue that you need a slightly larger bankroll to play 4 tables at once than you do to play one.

You're still thinking about things wrong. You can win or lose larger amounts of money playing 4 tables for 3 hours than you can playing 1 table for 3 hours. But you can also win or lose larger amounts of money playing 1 table for 12 hours than you can playing 1 table for 3 hours. Do you need a larger bankroll if you plan on playing more hours/week? Because that's all multi-tabling is. It's just time-compression. Think about it this way. Say you play 250 hands at each of 4 tables. You take 10 horrendous beats over the course of the 5 hour session, and end up dropping 5 buyins. You play perfect otherwise. The next day, your friend plays the exact same 1000 hands, except he plays them at one table over the course of 20 hours. He plays exactly the same as you, and takes the very same 10 awful beats from the same players in the same situation, and drops 5 buyins. Can we really say that because your hands took place in a shorter absolute time-frame you need a larger bankroll than him? Absolutely NOT. If we look at variance in terms of Risk of Ruin -- the only thing that really matters for poker players as far as bankroll considerations go -- then time is of absolutely no importance. It's simply about the expected return for each meaningful unit of contest: in this case, each hand. The math simply doesn't care how long it takes you to get 100K hands in. It just cares about your per/hand winrate, and the number of hands you played. That's all. Don't think of it like: "I have more money in play," because that's misleading if you're a winning player. The amount of money you have in play will affect your HOURLY return, but not your PER HAND return. And that's all that matters. Signed,MePS- The only argument you can make for increasing your bankroll because you multitable is one in which you stipulate that your winrate decreases as you add tables. Each table may add to your hourly rate, but decrease your per hand rate. Then, it takes less awful luck to bust us, so we need a slightly higher bankroll. For people that multitable, however, this is rarely a concern. My winrate for full-ring LHE went from 3.6BB/100 at one table to 3.3BB/100 when I played 4 tables. 300BB was more than enough at each level.