|
trainheavy
|
11-17-2006, 05:04 PM
Post subject: what stake would be better to play?
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11
|
|
I have a question. The general recommendation is to have at least 300 bb to play a certain limit. So, to play 1.00/2.00 I should have at least $600. In terms of potential profit, would I be better off playing one table at 1.00/2.00, or two tables at .50/1.00 (this is saying I can still play two tables without a significan drop in performance)?
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
Renton
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 5,991
|
|
why not play two tables of 1/2?
The 300bb br requirement isn't "per table"
|
|
|
|
trainheavy
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11
|
|
Oh, well I guess I'm confused then. What exactly is the 300 bb requirement for then? I always assumed that if I "should" have 300 bb for a certain stakes, that would equate to playing at one table. I mean if it's not per table, then what you're saying is I could in essence play 2 or even 3 1.00/2.00 tables at the same time all with the bankroll of $600 then, correct?
|
|
|
|
Renton
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 5,991
|
|
the 300bb requirement is a safeguard against a big downswing in a given number of hands (we'll say 10000 hands). Adding tables doesn't affect variance negatively (assuming you are playing well), and any downswing you have will be just as bad as if you were playing less tables, the only difference is that the downswing takes longer if you are only playing one, because it takes a longer time to get through those 10000 hands.
I probably didn't express this very clearly in my post, but oh well.
|
|
|
|
Warpe
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Canuckistan
Posts: 3,905
|
|
Play nl.
|
|
|
|
jyms
|
|
Tilting Mod
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Warpe
Play nl.
|
QFFT
|
|
|
|
NWNewell
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Kennedy Space Center, FL
Posts: 283
|
|
To protect against varience.
If you play 2 tables for 1 hour. That is the same as playing 1 table for 2 tables.
300bb to to proect against varience of poker. If you played 1 table for 100hours. You would not expect to lose 3bb per hour for 100hours and go broke (that would be just bad play, not because of a bad downswing). But you might play 1 table for 30hours and lose 3bb per hour to to a bad down swing. Causing you topretty much go broke if you only had 100bb bankroll.
Well, if you were to multi table, that just speeds up the process of how long it takes you to get in 100 "table hours". if you play 4 tables for 25hours, that is the same as playing 1 table for 100hours.
i.e. You might play 1 table and lose for 20bb in 4 hours. And then win 30bb in the next 4 yours. So you have 8 hours of play and are ahead 10bb. Well, that is the same thing as playing 2 tables for 4 hours. One table you lose 20bb and on the other you win 30bb. You are up 10bb after 8 "table hours". But you got those 8 "table hours" played in only 4 real hours from 2-tabling.
Yes, you could play 2,3, or even 4 tables with the same Bankroll. Because, thyoreticily, over time... the varience of each table should help cancel each other out. (may get cold cards and bad luck on one table, but good cards and good luck on another, helping to reduce varience ). However, keep in mind that on any given session it is possible to take a big hit and have a have a bad run on all your tables, and vice versa.
]
Also, if you 4-tables poorly, your bankroll will get drained 4 times as fast. Make sure you can easily beat the limts you are at playing one table at a time before you start multi-tabling.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
trainheavy
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11
|
|
Thanks Renton and NWNewell. I guess I misunderstood what I've been reading all this time. I usually don't play limit, but I've been wanting to try for awhile now, so I was just trying to get everything straight. So, the 300 bb recommendation is just strictly for what limit I should be playing, not how many tables I should be playing at a specific limit? I get it now.
|
|
|
|
arkitekton
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: canada
Posts: 269
|
|
You've got it.
btw, it's simply not possible to play more than one table without some drop in your win rate. If you're concerned about stakes and want to try two tables, I'd encourage you to try the lower limit until you're comfortable.
|
|
|
|
Tjorriemorrie
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South Africa
Posts: 57
|
|
I don't get it yet 
300 x 0.04c on the small stakes is $12. But the buy-in is $5?
So at most I could only play 3 tables <-- this is were I'm confused...
I heard Chris F say that it's good to use 5%. So if the buy-in is $5 then having a balance of $100 is good...
can someone help me?
|
|
"Poker is a game of people... It's not the hand I hold, it's the people that I play with." ~ Amarillo Slim
|
|
Nehmer
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Decatur, IL
Posts: 666
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tjorriemorrie
I don't get it yet
300 x 0.04c on the small stakes is $12. But the buy-in is $5?
So at most I could only play 3 tables <-- this is were I'm confused...
I heard Chris F say that it's good to use 5%. So if the buy-in is $5 then having a balance of $100 is good...
can someone help me? |
The 5% thing is probably referring to NL bankroll management or tournaments or something. The standard buy-in most places at a limit table is 25 big bets. So for a .02/.04 limit game, you would want a bankroll of .04 x 300 = $12. You would buy-in at each table for .04 x 25 = $1. So theoretically, with the minimum of proper bankrolls, you could play 12 tables at the same time at whatever stake you are playing.
|
|
|
|
bigspenda73
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pwnsylvania
Posts: 7,545
|
|
Ehh, I dont like 300bbs. Honestly, I like somewhere in the range of 450-500. This above post shows my point, 300bbs in only 12-15 stacks in Limit. Thats not too much security, especially if you 3-4-5 table like most of us do. I would never want to have upward of 33% of my BR in play at a single time. When I was playing .25/.50 I waited to til I have $450 to move to .5/1. Then, I waited til I had 1K to move up to 1/2. Granted I play 6max and the variance is much greater, but there are still potentially large swings in FR as well.
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
