4 tabling and Bankroll Management

[Lodogg]

So I am a 50NL 4 tabler. My current bankroll is about $3100. I was wondering if anyone has a suggestion as to when my bankroll is ready for NL100? Does anyone have a chart that they have found?

[Rabid Dog]

I would think your there with 30 buy ins.

[Lodogg]

That's the thing though...Am I at 30 buyins, or at 7.5 buyins (3000/400)?

[martindcx1e]

That's the thing though...Am I at 30 buyins, or at 7.5 buyins (3000/400)?

You are at 30. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think the general consensus is that you shouldn't need a larger bankroll because you are multi-tabling.

[Ebene]

30 buyins. As long as you equally well 4-tabling vs. 1-tabling, the bankroll needed to 4-table is exactly the same as it is for 1-table. Its no different with respect to bankroll (and variance) than if you played 1-table 4x as long.

[Renton]

you are more than rolled for 100. I started when my br was 2k.

EDIT: I think that you should have somewhat higher br requirements for multitabling, but not much. The only thing is it does suck having a large percentage of your bankroll on the tables at the same time. 2-2.5k should suffice though for 100nl, assuming you play full ring, six max i would have stricter requirements on.

[Lodogg]

Thanks for all of the info guys. I have 1 more question for you. Do you suggest that I jump up now considering that I have about 60k of experience at NL25 and only about 6k hands at NL50? Or should I stay NL50 for a while and make sure I am really beating it and not experiencing an upswing?

Thanks again!

[midas06]

Just go for it

[Greedo017]

what's your winrate at each. your 25nl winrate is probably more relevant than your 50nl winrate. I think the biggest factor here is, if you start at 100NL and drop 500 bucks or something, are you going to flip out.

[Lodogg]

Here are my win rates:

I only play full ring BTW

NL 25: 5.81/100
NL 50: 3.23/100

Losing $500 would make my Butthole pucker up

[dpe8598]

Unless you turn into a total donk when you multitable, it should have very little effect on your downswings. In fact, your down swings should happen faster and therefore seem like less.

In fact, your downswings should be less annoying, in that they will come and go faster, but your actual bankroll should have little to do w/ this happening.

On the other hand, if you are a bad player, you will notice you are bad faster w/ multiple tables.

[Ebene]

EDIT: I think that you should have somewhat higher br requirements for multitabling, but not much. The only thing is it does suck having a large percentage of your bankroll on the tables at the same time. 2-2.5k should suffice though for 100nl, assuming you play full ring, six max i would have stricter requirements on.

After almost a week of break even poker, I'm thinking this has some merit. Theoretically, it shouldn't matter to your bankroll whether you play 4-hours at 1 table or 1-hour at 4-tables. However, if you have ever done either of the following things then you should have a larger bankroll than you would otherwise:

1) Donked off 50-75BB twice on 2 tables within 5-10 minutes of each other, and after the 2nd one you sit back, shake your head and try to figure out who slipped you the "stupid" pill.

2) Gone on tilt and payed off 2 jackholes within 5-10 minutes of each other because you were tired of being bluffed (or you thought if I can catch that second pot I'll cover my losses)

Mostly I'm just venting about my own stupidity this week, but we're all human. Sometimes we play better, and sometimes we play worse. This won't change your expected winnings but it will increase variance if you are multi-tabling, which in turn will increase bankroll requirements.

[dev]

I stopped playing online for a long time, and I recently got back in. I have been playing live poker at least 4 days a week for months tho. I think so much about each specific move that I can bearly 2 table.

to think I used to play speed chess...

I, personally would think that if you're comfortable playing 4 tables @ 50, there's no reason to change anything for 100. I think the whole idea is that you play 10k hands or so at 100, and if you're not winning as much as you think you should, then you look at your stats in PT, figure out the leak, and fix it. This is what I hope to do anyway.

[Lodogg]

Doesn't multitabling decrease variance?

[Renton]

Doesn't multitabling decrease variance?

no it just causes variance to be apparant more quickly. Swings last a fraction of the time (if you play 4 tables, your swings are theoretically 1/4 as long).

[sejje]

Would you move up if you one-tabled? If so, then I say move up now.

I moved up much later with a much bigger 'roll, but that's just me...100 bucks still means a LOT to me off the poker table, and it's hard to get past that (when I'm losing )

I would set a limit before hand where you'll move back down. 200 bucks, 300 bucks something like that. You might get unlucky and downswing 300 bucks in 20 minutes in unavoidable situations...and then you can drop down, make it back, and give it a shot again. I just feel like it's the only way to be sure you're a winner.

One time I moved up and in five days I made 13 buy-ins in that game...over the next three days I went on the worst streak I've ever had (and I've had some dandys) of set under set, KK v AA, and major suckouts, and lost all 13 back. I was so shaken I moved back for a few months and I'm still not playing that limit 100% of the time.

Anyway, I think anyone that can beat the 25NL game for a reasonable rate can beat the 100NL game. I don't have a ton of experience at 100NL, but I feel like it's genuinely crushable. There's LOTS of guys willing to make horrible calls all the time.

GL.