Multitabling bankroll

Is it necessary for players who multitable to have larger bankrolls than people who play one table? For examply, i multitable 1c/2c and have built my bankroll to close to $100. This means that if I were to move up to 2/5c then i'd have 20 buy ins which seems to be the standard. I'll probably wait til I get to 25-30 but for the sake of this example, if I moved up to 5nl and wanted to multitable 8-12 tables at a time, which I do at 2nl, would I need a bigger bankroll or would j be ok with the standard?

Thanks

Honestly, at .02/.05 the standard 20 buy ins is plenty. The level of play doesn't go up all that much so if your a winner at .01/.02 you will in all likely hood keep crushin it.

Generally you do want to have a bigger bankroll if you multi table but at these limits it's not necesarry. If you have 20 buy-ins for 5nl, don't waste time at 2nl, just move up, you want to get past the micros as fast as possible, with in BRM of course.

Actually no. Your risk is defined by the variance that you experience in relationship to your win-rate. And that variance is just a function of what game you're playing and the size of the blinds.

All adding tables does is increase the number of hands you play. It doesn't change the variance you experience, so therefore, it doesn't change your risk of ruin or the amount you need in your bankroll.

They pretty much hit the nail on the head. If you are doing as well as you are at 2nl, your move up to 5nl should be painless and the 20 buyins should be sufficient. The one thing that you have to do though is to make sure you don't allow yourself to get pissed and go on tilt with half your tables if you have a bad run when you first start out, because you could lose a good portion of that bankroll when you have over half of it sitting at tables. If you're feeling like tilt is a possibility, just quit for a while.

My Bankroll Management

Cash Game: 3%
SnG STT: 2%
SnG MTT: 1%
180+ Player Tournament: 0.5%

Multi-tabling (2-4) = Original % divide by 2
Multi-tabling (5+) = Orginal % divide by 4

My BRM is more strict compared to other ones. This just insure that variance won't cause major downswings if you follow the rules. Of course, my BRM strategy cannot be followed with a BR of $100. More of around $500.

In your case, I would only put 2% of your BR at each table in the .01/.02 tables. Those tables are very soft and you want to extract the maximum with your premium hands. Short stacking those tables is not an option with your BR. At higher stakes, you're going to want to follow a more strict BRM.

Multi-tabling tends to decrease your variance since more hands played means more regression towards the norm.

However, another factor you may want to consider is how high- or low-varuance your playing style is. Guidelines such as 20 or 30 buyins seldom factor this in since they're general. But when you're talking specifically about one player, it can make a difference. A very loose player is fairly likely to experience 20 buyin swings at least once in a while whereas a very tight one may never.

ok so if 95% of the people lose money first you have to be sure which side your on if you are 1 of the 5% your ok but if not you need a bigger roll or you will just reload faster! and most players drop a little if they add to many tables.

depends on how many talbes do u play? If u only have $100 and want to multitable 20 tables then thats a bit silly innit? I only multitable 6/9 the most at NL5 and it's pretty easy to make $$$.

^ this.

You may want a bigger cushion when you first start multitabling or when you start adding more tables though in case it negatively affects your play.

I play pretty tightly so I don't expect any enormous swings that take out my entire bankroll. I'm going to move up in the next couple of days. I right now play eight tables but i'm planning on adding gradually.

Thanks for the advice. Just to clear up, it isn't bad for me to play eight 5nl tables, $40 total, with a $100 bankroll?

No. Rock out with your cock out, and stack those $5NL fish.

If you want a more exact measurement of what your bankroll should be, try here: http://www.poker-tools-online.com/riskofruin.html

There's no spot for number of tables. All that matters is your standard deviation, your win rate, and your bankroll size. You can get your win rate & standard deviation from most poker tracking programs.

If you are playing full ring with TAG style - then you can move to 2/5c with 20 buy-ins,but I'd recommend to lower the number of the tables if you want to become a better poker player...but this is something to consider when you have a bankroll for 10/25c

If your game is going to be affected badly by a downswing of 3-4 buy-ins - you'd better wait and start playing 2/5c when you have $140-150..

Poker players outplay their opponents and you can't outplay anyone if you open too many tables.You can't do it because you can't watch them play. Your attention is always where's your action and you can't see your opponents play with each other.

Yeah but I'm not getting a lot better by observing microstakes players, they're impossible to read. I've had so much more success playing ABC than trying to get creative. They don't fold.

Multi-tabling isn't usually about outplaying opponents, although the better MTers can still do that to some degree. The whole concept behind MT'ing is exploiting tiny edges in volume. Your bb/100 decreases since you're playing fewer hands, but your winrate increases because you're getting more playable hands.

Also, virtually all good MTers use a HUD so they do have information on their opponents, especially the regs, at a glance.

There are way too many insanely good MTers making a killing at 16-20 tabling or more to suggest that it's not poker (or not profitable). It just takes a lot of practice and not everyone can adapt to it I guess.

When I first tried, it took all of my concentration to play 2 tables. The biggest hurdle was adjusting my game so as not to try and outplay people as often. Get in when I think I'm ahead, or get out -- don't try to get tricky. I think this is where most new MTers go wrong, I know I did. But once that settled in, I added 2 more, and then 2 more. Now I comfortably play 6-8 tables. Although I'm on a terrible downswing with ring lately, but that's more due to tilt and self-control probably than anything else, plus I get these spells of high-variance play style that I have a hard time shaking sometimes. Like when I've settled into a groove of running over a passive table, then not making the adjustment when TAG regs sit down. So I've backed off a bit on ring and am 1-2 tabling MTTs/SnGs for awhile -- the last time this happened, I won a major MTT and cashed big in several smaller ones, so it boosted both my BR and my confidence. Here's hoping for a repeat...

Good point dmorris. I feel like a lot of the time you can tell the people who are fairly new to playing multiple tables because you will see them on 2 or 4 tables and they are trying to overplay people and play kind of out of control playing too many hands. Almost like as soon as they see that it's their turn, they just bet no matter what hoping people will fold, but they end up losing a lot. Many times these people are so flustered that I think they click call or bet before they even look at the table, many of them having VPIP's well over 50% at multiple tables....that's when you go find where they are and sit at every one of their tables.