Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I stick by the 1000-1200 x the big blind rule as I believe it applies to live and online. It's a safe play. If you're multi-tabling online you'd obviously need more, since more of your roll would be at risk at once. Say 2000 big blinds for double tabling and so on... Just my opinion. Others may see it differently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was just wondering what everyone thought an acceptable nl bankroll is for online play and if its the same for liveish
What a great question...I've been wondering myself for a long time but nobody ever seems to post new and intriguing topics such as this. I've even searched everywhere online and on this forum and can't seem to find an answer!sw
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all above...about 10 times buyin.I don't know how big the games you are playing online. B&M games might be higher.It also depends on how easy it is for you to reload. In other words, are you living on your bankroll or if it is a hobby. If a hobby you need less...if you living you need more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I stick by the 1000-1200 x the big blind rule as I believe it applies to live and online. It's a safe play. If you're multi-tabling online you'd obviously need more, since more of your roll would be at risk at once. Say 2000 big blinds for double tabling and so on... Just my opinion. Others may see it differently.
Are you serious? Do you understand why this is competely wrong?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quoted for truth.
You're joking right? Playing 2 tables for an hour carries EXACTLY the same risk as playing one table for 2 hours. This is a mathematical fact.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way you can justify saying that you need a bigger bankroll if you are multi tabling is if you think your winrate will go substantially down. The whole concept of risk of ruin is it gives you the probabiity of going broke with a given winrate and a given bankroll. The length of time you play does play a role unless you are a losing player and your trying to figure out how much money you will need to play for a given amount of time. And by the way this topic has been posted at least 5 times since ive been on this forum which as you can see isn't very long.Heres a link for all of you non believers. http://cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archi...4233&m_id=65544

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I would also like to know your thoughts behind this?
Multi tabling in no way makes your risk of losing your bankroll any higher. If anything it evens out the swings to more of a normal level because you are able to obtain more of a larger sample in a smaller time period. then again if you are a donk then yes, a larger bankroll would be necessary to last just a tad bit longer, you'll eventually lose it :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
You're joking right? Playing 2 tables for an hour carries EXACTLY the same risk as playing one table for 2 hours. This is a mathematical fact.
well go ahead and show me the math b/c it doens't make sence to me... if you sit in two games with 100 big blinds you have more of your bankroll at risk
Link to post
Share on other sites
well go ahead and show me the math b/c it doens't make sence to me... if you sit in two games with 100 big blinds you have more of your bankroll at risk
I can't really explain it mathmatically. I'm terrible at it. Buy try looking at it like individual bets. You don't have more bankroll at risk. You are simply making two (for two tables) individual bets at once. You don't have to wait untill one of your bets is complete to place another one. Your bankroll basically says I can make 100 bets, at a 3% advantage, with a given chance of going broke. It doesn't matter if you make 100 bets all at once, or make them one bet at a time. Your chance of going broke will be the same.The chance of going broke only increases if your bet size increases (going up in limits) or if your advantage drops (better opponents).Make sense?
Link to post
Share on other sites
well go ahead and show me the math b/c it doens't make sence to me... if you sit in two games with 100 big blinds you have more of your bankroll at risk
There's really no proof to provide. Risk Of Ruin is a function of win-rate, standard deviation, and bankroll. Number of tables never enters into it. Let's do a thought experiment though. Let's say I play 1 table, and I'm willing to rebuy if I go bust since the game is so juicy. Let's say I'm dealt AA first hand, and I push all in. Forget results...not important. Let's say next hand the exact same thing happens. I've played 2 hands, and how much of my bankroll have I risked? I've risked 1 buy-in twice, or 2 buy-ins total. Now let's say I sit at two juicy tables, and get dealt AA on each and push all in. I've played 2 hands, and how much of my bankroll have I risked? 2 buy-ins once each, or 2 buy-ins total.You aren't risking more of your bankroll playing multiple tables. You're just risking it more times per hour. It's equivalent to playing faster. In fact, multi-tabling really only lowers your hourly standard deviation. Makes it more likely that your results for each hour of play will be closer to your true win-rate.All this assumes that your win-rate is the same multi-tabling as it is single-tabling. In reality, your win-rate probably dips slightly, which may increase your BR requirements by some small amount. You'd have to do the calculations to get the real number.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...