Bankroll Management And Multi-tabling

[Luke00016 0]

I tried to find some opinions on this but couldn't find too much, so I thought I'd ask.Do the number of tables you play influence your bankroll management?My background: I play 3 shorthanded $.50/$1.00 NL tables at a time with a bankroll of 35 buy-ins. Every time I get up to 40 buyins I withdraw down to 35 and put the profit into savings.Is this considered a "safe" buyin range? I feel it may be a little on the aggressive side (which is one reason I don't move up limits) but that's just my opinion.Does the fact that I multi-table change this? I'll have 3 buy-ins on the table at any time, but I can only lose 1 of them in any given hand. Granted, it's possible that a bad beat on one table could make me spew on all 3 tables, but I'm good at walking away very quickly if I feel myself tilting.What does everyone think? Should I up my bankroll to be safe? If I decide to move up, how many buyins should I store up? And any advice on moving up would be nice also. Should I do two $.50/$1.00 and one $1/$2? Or just play a single $1/$2 until I get comfortable with it? I know it's not a huge monetary change; I feel it's more a mental thing with me.Any advice is appreciated!

[mtdesmoines 3]

35 buy ins is completely safe. And the fact that you are multitabling is not an issue.

[potatoman 0]

Some math guys might be able to show you whether it makes any difference or not.Playing shorthanded, IMO, can make a difference. I personally, would feel more comfortable with a bigger bankroll , in general, while playing short handed, then playing full ring.Playing short-handed, AND multi-tabling can make a difference. If playing 3 tables reduces your ability to make correct decision, than it probably increases your risk for loses and going broke.But, I wouldn't agree that playing three $200 NL tables means the same as, say, playing one $600NL table.In short, unless multi tabling is reducing your ability to play well, 3 tabling it with 35 buyins should be fine. I would play with around 50...but I'm a bankroll nit. Just play with the number you're comfortable with and have a plan for moving down stakes.

[rayen 0]

As long as you are comfortable playing x number of tables I feel multitabling is much better than 1 table since it keeps you from waiting long periods from playing and keeps you focused without losing your patience and do silly things like playing stupid hands that gonna get you broke

[KoRnholio 2]

Multitabling is fine. But if you keep withdrawing your winnings like that, you will go broke eventually. 35 buyins is a good bankroll, but even that carries a small risk of ruin. However, if your bankroll stays at 35 BIs forever, eventually you will be ruined. I believe it was Mason Malmuth (and/or Sklansky?) who discussed this in one of his books on gambling/other topics.The logic behind it is this. Let's say your bankroll of X and your winrate Y provides a 96% chance of not going broke (thus a 4% chance of going broke). This assumes that as you win, your bankroll grows and your chance of going broke with your new roll gets smaller and smaller. But, after winning some money, if you then reduce your bankroll back to X, you now have another 4% chance of going broke all over again as you start from the same amount.

[chgocubs99 0]

Multitabling is fine. But if you keep withdrawing your winnings like that, you will go broke eventually. 35 buyins is a good bankroll, but even that carries a small risk of ruin. However, if your bankroll stays at 35 BIs forever, eventually you will be ruined. I believe it was Mason Malmuth (and/or Sklansky?) who discussed this in one of his books on gambling/other topics.The logic behind it is this. Let's say your bankroll of X and your winrate Y provides a 96% chance of not going broke (thus a 4% chance of going broke). This assumes that as you win, your bankroll grows and your chance of going broke with your new roll gets smaller and smaller. But, after winning some money, if you then reduce your bankroll back to X, you now have another 4% chance of going broke all over again as you start from the same amount.

Except you can move down before that happens. Then your chance of going broke is 0%.

[KoRnholio 2]

Except you can move down before that happens. Then your chance of going broke is 0%.

I know what you mean, but just wanna point out that your chance of going broke is never 0. Although from the OP's post, it seems he wants to keep grinding out profit at 100NL.

[chgocubs99 0]

I know what you mean, but just wanna point out that your chance of going broke is never 0. Although from the OP's post, it seems he wants to keep grinding out profit at 100NL.

Very well...if you are a moderately competent player, practice decent bankroll management, and move down when appropriate, your chance of going broke is less than you winning the state lottery.

[Sens-Eh 0]

sure sounds safe to me. I think it is a personality thing though. Some people are just locked into their limits and will never go up or drop down. But if you are willing to drop down at some point, then you should always be able to build back up to your desired amount...Risk of ruin approaches zero. to summarize: "I agree with chqocubs"