Printable View
Convention says that you should have 300x BB to play at a limit. So theoretically, if I had $150, I could play at the .25/.50 tables. My question is, am I bankrolled to multi-table the .25/.50, or would that count as me playing like 1/2 (assuming I was multi'ing 4 tables)?
I guess it's the same as 1/2..
mathematically, it does not matter how many tables you play. if you are adequately bankrolled for a certain level, then playing multiple tables does nothing other than to increase the number of hands you see in a given period of time.
winning players like to increase the number of hands they see in a given period of time. this is because, over the long run, they are winning players. multitabling makes the "long run" come quicker.
the one disclaimer is that most people cannot sustain the same win rate at multiple tables that they can by playing just one at a time. this is expected and ok, as long as the depreciation in your win rate is inversely correlated with the number of tables you add. for example, if you move to 4 tables but your BB/100 drops to 1/4 what it was at one table, then you are making the same amount of money. make sense? so, at some point, there is a diminishing return for most players. see elipsesjeff for more complete analysis of this.
you can play at the .25/.50 tables... the actual limit is for one table
andrthx_me - that's a bit confusing (I'm confused, at least). The original poster can play as many tables of $0.25/$0.50 fixed limit as he wants with a $150 BR.
However, were he to want to play no limit, he would have to play at the $0.05/$0.10 tables *if* he was a confident winning player, or $0.02/$0.04 if he was a beginner. This is because the rule of thumb is that you need 20 buyins to play at any limit - although 15 may be enough at the lowest limits.
Playing multiple tables should actually decrease variance. But I think there is still increased risk from multi-tabling versus single tabling (loose money faster at all tables when tilting, possible down swings can be larger, etc).
I like to follow the "square root" rule that I've heard Howard Lederer talk about:
1 table of $1/$2 = 300bb = $600
2 tables of $1/$2 = 300bb * sqrt(2) = $850
3 tables of $1/$2 = 300bb * sqrt(3) = $1040
4 tables of $1/$2 = 300bb * sqrt(4) = $1200
This is a bit on the conservative side... but a good general idea.
20buy ins for NL. In other words, once you have 20 buyins for $50nl ($1000) you can play any amount of 50nl tables (20 if you want)
I cant see much problem with this.
In limit, you need 300bbs for a level. So if you have $150, you have 300bbs for 0.25/0.50 and you can play as many tables of that game as you want.
It doesnt mean you can play 1/2 as then you only effectivly have 75bbs for 1/2 games.
think of it as playing not 5 tables of .25/.50
but ONE SUPER LARGE .25/.50 table.
your level is your level, no matter how many tables you open up.
good question, though, i used to wonder the same thing.
FYP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chopper
You can play that game, just make sure that you're paying attention if it comes time to drop down a limit. It's not the same as playing 1/2. GL.
I'm not sure how many tables he intends to play (some people multi with 2 some with 9 AFAIK) and I'm guessing the swings in limit are less. But still me personally would play $0.10\0.25 at the max.
But the general consensus is that you should be ok so you should probably go with them mate
This is a VERY good idea. I dont know why I hadnt heard of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by NWNewell
I disagree with some posters here, I feel that multitabling is higher variance because you have less reads, it's just that you get an image of less variance because you go through the swings much faster.
No, I understand they're usually much greater.Quote:
Originally Posted by martypalin
I don't think your variance would be higher, unless as a function of your winrate being lower. But this is another issue altogether, it's not the point at hand. The point is this: if you play four tables of .5/1 it's not different from playing one table, at least as far as bankroll requirement is concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash256
Do you recommend a higher bankroll for players who win less than others? Do you specify a winrate requirement when you talk about BR size requirements? I've never seen anyone quote something like that, but it's what you're saying, in effect.
if your winrate is smaller your swings will be larger hence limit swings are large and marginal winners in NL will suffer big swings
absolutely not. your swings in a limit game will dwarf anything you have ever thought of at a NL table. you will go on MONTHS of ups and downs. it can/will really shake up your confidence. once you get a case of the "beats," they never seem to stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by martypalin
actually, i may have mispoke. i shouldnt say the swings are larger, as much as they are LONGER.
however, i have never gone through a limit swing that didnt make my NL game better :idea: . get good at both, and you will have an endless supply of fish.
NL is the craze right now, and has been for several years. no one knows how to play limit very well right now, imo. me included. but i can beat the game. it's a more "thought provoking" game. many more calculations needed; hence, more "moves" can be made at higher stakes.
i guess my point is that limit, with its longer swings, gives a fish "more of a chance" in the short term. in NL, they go busto much faster because of the bet sizes, and losing of stacks, not one and two bets. the mistakes are not magnified like a NL game; therefore, it takes longer for your mistakes/leaks to take effect...
hence, the longer streaks of variance. if you suck, you still lose, but because it takes longer, you have more of a chance to catch some serioius lady luck, and stick around even longer...but you will still lose, if you dont improve as a player. or, at least, thats my opinion.
Without wanting to get into a limit vs NL conversation...
This, I disagree with. Because, as you say, there are more calculations needed, there is almost no "thought" until, as you say, you get to high enough levels where simply playing the odds isn't going to work any more. So, basically, you can play more or less correct limit poker on autopilot - spots to fold, raise and call can virtually be learned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chopper
In NL, you have to consider that any villain can go all in at any time, and vice versa. So you can't simply rely on the fact that your nut flush draw, or whatever, is going to see showdown whatever happens. Do you semi-bluff with it? Do you call or raise when the villain leads? How far can you call with implied odds? Etc. etc. This requires a type of thought that limit simply doesn't.
limit players would say differently. For one i play both, but i dont want to get into a pissing match about it either.Quote:
Originally Posted by biondino
Thats silly biondino. Theres a reason Sklansky wrote in one of his PokerEssays books that limit is a significantly harder game. Go pick it up, I think its volume 3. Interesting read.
Meh... and other respected players have said the opposite. :?Quote:
Originally Posted by euphoricism