This May Sound Pathetic, But I'm Desperate

[David_Nicoson 1]

Without disagreeing with any of the theory Bizarro-Wang has presented, multi-tabling at constant stakes does increase a player's required bankroll to the extent that it decreases his win rate / hand. It's possible for a player to increase his win rate by adding tables to fight boredom. But at a certain point we come to the limits of his abilities. A player picks t tables to play. Why not t-1 or t+1? Presumably, he's picking t in an effort to maximize his per hour expectation. If his win rate per hand stays constant, then he should play infinitely many tables. Picking a finite number of tables makes sense only if his win rate per hand is decreasing as he adds tables.Now, there may be some sort of leap in rate, because our hero obviously has to pick an integer number of tables, even if his brain could make the most money playing 3.456 tables. I could believe that a person plays at a higher win rate/ hand at two tables than at one, but I think it's pretty unlikely that someone's best win rate is 8 tables, for instance, and it's also the best number of tables in terms of $EV/hour.