This May Sound Pathetic, But I'm Desperate

[Acid_Knight 2]

Yeah, I am still looking at it wrong :)I'll stop doing that now.It's just counter intuitive (for me at least) to think that you don't need a bigger BR when you have 4x as much money in play, but you're absolutely right.

[Acid_Knight 2]

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.

This is a good paragraph. I am sitting here amused, becuase this is all stuff that I know and yet I was arguing against it. Weird.

[Ouch-8s 4]

We both know you're right in as far as the math is concerned. But for those of us who are not as skilled in tactics, I suspect that AK is talking about the psychological implications of multi-tabling, which math doesn't cover.You need a bigger BR if you're prone to not noticing you're tilting very quickly, because multi-tabling will increase the amount you've lost in the period of time it takes you to notice you're tilting, which is not affected by how many hands you play in that period.

[Temporary Nuts 1]

This is a good paragraph. I am sitting here amused, becuase this is all stuff that I know and yet I was arguing against it. Weird.

You're arguing against it because you understand humans aren't bots, and that in practice, not theory, there are extraneous factors that cause us to need a larger BR. Mathematics can never explain behavioral determinants. I think somewhere in that brain you instinctively recognized this.One more thing about human nature. We're less likely to read and comprehend long paragraphs than short sentences, but logic dictates that if we can understand a concise message, our comprehension of larger messages should not decline

[Tactical Bear 3]

We both know you're right in as far as the math is concerned. But for those of us who are not as skilled in tactics, I suspect that AK is talking about the psychological implications of multi-tabling, which math doesn't cover.You need a bigger BR if you're prone to not noticing you're tilting very quickly, because multi-tabling will increase the amount you've lost in the period of time it takes you to notice you're tilting, which is not affected by how many hands you play in that period.

I don't think he'll claim that. If you look at the discussion, it was based purely on the idea that more money in play means more money one can win/lose in a given time period. What you're suggesting is true, but Acid and I never discussed the idea that there are time-sensitive changes in winrate. As a counter-argument, however, there are many players who claim multi-tabling HELPS with tilt-control. I am one of them. The more hands I'm seeing and playing, the busier I am, and the less mental energy I can devote to, well, emotions that could affect my play. Oddly enough, I have been known to "Table Tilt," meaning I'll be on stone tilt on one table, and playing perfectly normally on another. (shrug)Regardless, I don't think the Argument from Steam Perspective is a good enough one to cause us to add 100BB or 10 buy-ins to our bankroll. I don't know too many WINNING players whose winrates are so deflated by tilt that playing more hands while tilting will make a standard bankroll insufficient. Either way, this is a perspective we're just now addressing.

You're arguing against it because you understand humans aren't bots, and that in practice, not theory, there are extraneous factors that cause us to need a larger BR. Mathematics can never explain behavioral determinants. I think somewhere in that brain you instinctively recognized this.One more thing about human nature. We're less likely to read and comprehend long paragraphs than short sentences, but logic dictates that if we can understand a concise message, our comprehension of larger messages should not decline

The bolded part is untrue, assuming you're using the word "extraneous" to mean "foreign or improper." There are NOT extraneous factors that cause us to need a larger bankroll. There are factors that increase our winrates, there are factors that decrease our winrates. This is pretty much all there is. If playing 4 tables takes you from a 2BB/100 winner in a limit hold-em game to a .5BB/100 winner, then the factors really aren't "extraneous." It's right there in front of you. The extra tables cause us to play worse, and win less. There could be a few reasons for our poorer play -- loss of concentration, increased anxiety, poor motor-control -- but those factors aren't really "extraneous." The model explains them. There will be no mysterious reasons our bankroll has to go up. All the reasons will be explainable. Tilt is tangible. A diminished capacity for concentation or focus is tangible, and explains a smaller win-rate when multi-tabling. "Humans aren't bots." No. We're not. Multi-tabling decreases our winrate and may cause us to need larger bankrolls. But if you're winning at a rate where a "standard" bankroll will no longer suffice simply because you're playing a few extra tables, there's reason to believe you're simply not a very good player, or a very winning player. You may need a very large bankroll just to play ONE table. Or perhaps you're just very bad at multi-tabling. I know some very good players who will never play more than 2 tables at once. In fact, the best player I've ever known plays 1 or 2 tables at a time, and that's it. He's simply not equipped to multitable. He is, however, an exception to the rule. Using his case to generalize would be a huge mistake.I like discussions like this.

[Ouch-8s 4]

Damn you, semantic bear.That's how I read AK's posts. At least at first. My point was solely that the time passed vs hands played argument is not 100% accurate, because as was pointed out, we aren't robots.

[Temporary Nuts 1]

LOL @ semantic bear... truth!You know what I liked about his post best? He replied to mine in a long winded paragraph despite the fact that my post was clearly hinting I wasn't going to read it. Especially when he decided to bold / define something in mine and base the entire argument on it like this was debate team.Oh, and to be an ass, I can think of one that fits in your definition that is extraneous. Higher misclick %.

[Tactical Bear 3]

Damn you, semantic bear.That's how I read AK's posts. At least at first. My point was solely that the time passed vs hands played argument is not 100% accurate, because as was pointed out, we aren't robots.

You're making the assumption we're significantly MORE likely to play worse for brief periods than better. If we can cram 4x as many hands in during the fishiest hours by multitabling -- instead of getting in half our weekly hands when the tables aren't too soft -- wouldn't it follow that the effect of tilt on our winrate is more than offset by the poorer quality of play that a smart, selective player can take advantage of? (shrug)I'm just saying, the statement "If you multitable you should have a bigger bankroll" is misleading in the sense that it's basically wrong.That's all I'm saying. I'm saying it's wrong.

[Ouch-8s 4]

wouldn't it follow that the effect of tilt on our winrate is more than offset by the poorer quality of play that a smart, selective player can take advantage of?

good point

[Ricer98 0]

Okay so I might have been drinking last night while posting and I think I misunderstood the orginal argument.Yes, you don't have to have a bigger bankroll to play to multiple tables. For a lot of players though, it isn't a bad idea. Playing 4 tables your SWINGS will increase so you can win or lose more in a give time frame. This can have great psychological effects on a lot of players when losing or are on a bad run. Its all going to depend on your emotional and psychological balance and control. Saying you need more buy ins playing more tables is incorrect, but so is saying you don't need more buy ins. Its going to vary from player to player.

[Tactical Bear 3]

LOL @ semantic bear... truth!You know what I liked about his post best? He replied to mine in a long winded paragraph despite the fact that my post was clearly hinting I wasn't going to read it. Especially when he decided to bold / define something in mine and base the entire argument on it like this was debate team.Oh, and to be an ass, I can think of one that fits in your definition that is extraneous. Higher misclick %.

I think we use the word extraneous differently. That seems like a tangible error that has a directly explainable effect on my winrate. Do you notice, now, how in order to accomodate you I'm writing in one-line paragraphs?I bet you'll still become distracted, or pretend to be distracted so as not to have to continue the dialog.Then you'll insult me again (in lieu of making a rational argument) by saying I conduct myself like I'm on the debate team. Because debaters are NERDS.You are bad at logical discourse.Strike that. You are simply worse than me. It's okay, though, because I'm good at this. I was a state-champion caliber debater in highschool, though, so don't feel too bad.Oh yeah, you are a faggot.

[Temporary Nuts 1]

Temp Nuts is one hell of a troll

FYP

[Acid_Knight 2]

I don't think he'll claim that. If you look at the discussion, it was based purely on the idea that more money in play means more money one can win/lose in a given time period. What you're suggesting is true, but Acid and I never discussed the idea that there are time-sensitive changes in winrate.

I pretty much only claim that I was wrong.Psychologically, it makes a difference.Mathematically, it does not.

[Tactical Bear 3]

I pretty much only claim that I was wrong.Psychologically, it makes a difference.Mathematically, it does not.

I wish my girlfriends acted like you. Me: "But honey, using a series of mathematical equations and repeated experiments I have proven BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that I am correct. Look. Just look! My research is so highly regarded in this case that I've been nominated for the Nobel Prize!"Her: (disdainfully flippant) "I don't know. I still think I'm right."Me: "I hate you."

[Temporary Nuts 1]

I wish my girlfriends acted like you. Me: "But honey, using a series of mathematical equations and repeated experiments I have proven BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that I am correct. Look. Just look! My research is so highly regarded in this case that I've been nominated for the Nobel Prize!"Her: (disdainfully flippant) "I don't know. I still think I'm right."Me: "I hate you."

Champion debaters don't get caught in straw man fallacies.

[davezz5 0]

Say for example i have a sufficient bankroll for .50/1, say 2k, 20 buyings. If i play one table then i only have 5% of my money in play at any one time. Am i right that the general thinking is that this is compatible in terms of as having 20 buyings spread over twenty tables? Obviously this would represent 100% of my bankroll.Although its almost impossible to play twenty tables, i expect someone could. Although, Whether they could or not is academic anyway, as this is an example. In theory, on all twenty tables you could be dealt pocket aces, get all the money in the middle, take twenty bad beats, and go broke. If you play single tables of course you could, again in theory lose 20 buyings in a row with AA and bust. But the difference being before you end up busto, you have a chance of re-evaluating and playing smaller stakes,until your bankroll recovers.I don't really have a definitive conclusion. Do Any of the more math inclined posters have an opinion on this scenario.

[Ouch-8s 4]

Champion debaters don't get caught in straw man fallacies.

And master debators don't need girlfriends, but I fail to see your point.

[Temporary Nuts 1]

And master debators don't need girlfriends, but I FAIL to see your point.

Man... people are beating me to it inside their own posts now... you guys catch on quickly.

[Acid_Knight 2]

I wish my girlfriends acted like you.

I'm pretty sure this is extremely wrong on more levels than I can count.

[Tactical Bear 3]

I'm pretty sure this is extremely wrong on more levels than I can count.

And I'm pretty sure I'm comfortable with my earlier statement, and will not be retracting it or amending it.

[Andromeda 0]

well this thread took a turn for the worse...

[Tactical Bear 3]

well this thread took a turn for the worse...

Are you sure you don't mean turn for the BETTER? If not, then:I pretty much ruin everything.

[Andromeda 0]

Are you sure you don't mean turn for the BETTER? If not, then:I pretty much ruin everything.

tbh it doesn't matter...I'm just happy to be noticed on this forum

[mtdesmoines 3]

I wish my girlfriends acted like you.

/thread

[AndyZ28 0]

And master debators don't need girlfriends

You might be a master debater, but I'm a cunning linguist.