Required bankroll for multiple hands

[Phoebe]

So if single player bankroll = 5000, then 5 players bet at 5 different tables(one player at each table) can just share the same bankroll 5000 with no additional risk ?

Yes.
They simply play 5 times faster and since the ROR is calculated at infinity, time does not matter.

[James989]

Yes.
They simply play 5 times faster and since the ROR is calculated at infinity, time does not matter.

Thanks for your reply.

Gronbog(post #11) and you have the same opinion but not Don(post #14) . . . .

[James989]

Yes.....
Also, if you play five simultaneous hands at the same table, it goes without saying that, to bet optimally, each of the bets will be much smaller than the one-hand wager. For two simultaneous hands, we know that wager to be 73%. For five hands, it's 43%.

Don

But Philippe B(post #15) and Gronbog(post #11) stated that we only need 1 x single player bankroll if 5 players bet at 5 different table(one player at each table) ?

[BJPloppy]

But Philippe B(post #15) and Gronbog(post #11) stated that we only need 1 x single player bankroll if 5 players bet at 5 different table(one player at each table) ?

I think that if you go back and reread Don's answer, you will find that he is in agreement. He went further to to also answer the question about 5 hands at the same table and the effect of co-variance.

[James989]

I think that if you go back and reread Don's answer, you will find that he is in agreement. He went further to to also answer the question about 5 hands at the same table and the effect of co-variance.

Don(post #14).jpg

Don said : Yes(post #14, see image above) . . . .means 5 x single player bankroll NOT only 1 single player bankroll , am I correct ?

Philippe B(post #15) and Gronbog(post #11) stated that we only need 1 x single player bankroll if 5 players bet at 5 different tables(one player at each table)

That is why I said Don have different opinion. Am I correct ?

[BJPloppy]

Don said : Yes(post #14, see image above) . . . .means 5 x single player bankroll NOT only 1 single player bankroll , am I correct ?

Philippe B(post #15) and Gronbog(post #11) stated that we only need 1 x single player bankroll if 5 players bet at 5 different table(one player at each table)

That is why I said Don have different opinion. Am I correct ?

I apologize, I am the one who did not read correctly. I see what you are saying now. The logic of only needing one single player bankroll makes sense to me, but I do not have the math skills of any of your previous respondents.

[ferenc11]

Mr.Zen! I know casinos where you can place your bets on all 7 spots (simultaneously) whenever you please. In these premises more boxes you play on more they would make you feel welcome...

[James989]

I apologize, I am the one who did not read correctly. I see what you are saying now. The logic of only needing one single player bankroll makes sense to me, but I do not have the math skills of any of your previous respondents.

I agree that only need one single player bankroll if 5 players bet at 5 different tables(one player at each table).

However, may be Don have his reason ? I hope he can give response on this matter.

Tq

[DSchles]

Yes to the above. :-)

Don

[Freightman]

It looks to me like Don read the post he quoted wrong. Or, more likely, Don took your question literally rather than understand what you were actually asking.


The other possibility is Don took your post quite literally, rather than implying what you actually were asking. You should have phrased your question with a few more words (added in bold) to make what you wrote mean what you were actually asking:

So if 5 players that are playing as a team on a shared BR bet at different table(covariance = 0), then the shared bankroll of 5 players should be exactly same as 5 * a single player bankroll?

Do you see the difference in literally answering what you wrote?
"So if 5 players bet at different table(covariance = 0), then the bankroll of 5 players should be exactly same as 5 * a single player bankroll ?"

Everyone else but Don understood, or at least answered, what you meant to ask rather than answer a literal interpretation of your question.

Nice catch