My WSOP satelitte theory

[CardSharpCook]

OK, actually a pretty simple theory. If you are going to invest $100 in a tourney, wouldn't it be better to do so in a tourney that pays cash instead of something that is "just as good as cash". I mean, if you are gonna win an $11K prize in a tourney, wouldn't you like that prize to be cash?

Ok, ok. "But CSC, I'm not gonna play the WSOP for $10k - that is just too much money. But I'm willing to play a sat for $100 - I can afford that."

I understand, but Party offers $100 tourneys several times during the day AND you still get paid even if you don't win it all. Why not call one of these random tournies your WSOP qualifier? Then, say you win, you get $11k AND you don't HAVE to use it to play the WSOP. If you like, you can put it away for little Johnny's education, or you can use it to help buy a house, or how about a vacation for you and the missus? The point is, you still have 4 months to decide if you really want to spend ten grand on a poker tournement. True, true, it is an investment with longterm profitability, but for most of us, we can't afford the variance, nor are we going to be able to run enough repititions on this wager IN OUR ENTIRE LIFETIME to make this a safe wager. Again, for players who routinely play $1K+ buy in tourney's, this does not apply to you, but for the rest of us, this is a concern.

Next point of theory. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm a hell of a lot better at MTTs than I am at Sats. I'm also a hell of a lot more comfortable playing with a standard prize pool distribution than I am with a winner take all tourney. It just makes more sense for me to invest in MTTs.

So why do we play sats? I think it is the very human part of us that wants to get something for a really good value. That part of us that believes we can win the lottery. But shouldn't the rational side of our brain rise up and ask these questions? Like, "I know that I am a good player who will make X% of my buy-in in a regular tourney and my avg tourney buy in is $100. I know that I will win this WSOP tourney Y% of the time. If an average WSOP Sat lasts two hours (sometimes I bust in 1, sometimes 3, but avg time I bust in is 2) and I need to play 1/Y tournies, that means I must spend 2/Y hours playing these WSOP sats to win a prize worth $11K. If 2/Y hours *X*100/(length of avg. tourney) > $11K, then I should play regular tournies instead. Don't try to follow this math, there are flaws in it, but you get the idea. If you are more profitable at MTTs, you shouldn't play WSOP sats.

Anyway, the point is, I think it might be foolish to play these sats. I figure it is better to play a real tourney where the prize is cash and more people get paid.

CSC

[bugstud]

the type of play is different...and you invest less for a greater outlay. I'ts hard to have well over a 10k earn in say 8th in a tourney unless it has that WSOP SATELLITE on it to draw all the entrants.

You have a valid point, when I want to "qualify" for the party tourneys or whatnot sometimes I'll play a 100 sng to see if I get to or not.

[CardSharpCook]

so then your counterpoint is that WSOP SATELITTE invites more fish and the overall play is poorer/easier to beat? AND you like a tourney that pays the same for 1st-8th.

CSC

[bugstud]

not so much that I like it, but it has certain aspects to it that do give it merit. The ability to just invest time and win multiple satellites and eventually get the seat are nice. I also dislike 25k prize jumps between first and second /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[AlwaysWrong]

In general I never play in satelittes, for the simple reason that it forces me to spend money in a way I otherwise wouldn't, as you stated.

However, I decided to try to qualify for the WSOP this year, so I'm going to be playing in them. I've played in a couple of the Empire 100+10's that give away 1 seat guarenteed. I've found that people adjust very poorly to the payout structure of these. A survivalist strategy is obviously stupid in a tournament that just pays one spot, but it seems like people in these actually play TIGHTER than they do in normal events. I'm not positive this justifies playing in these tournaments from a purely logical standpoint, but it can't be that wrong, and hey.. it's fun. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[youngin20]

Wanna know what i think? Dont play the main event. Play other events. In total there were 33 events last year, do you really want to play an event with like 89123891283 players in it? Play sats. for smaller events (if they have them) like 1k /3k/5k NLHE type deals. The prize pools in these are still huge, and it will give you a real feel for the WSOP. The main event will be BS, I think the other events will be a good experience. I say take a few days playing the smaller buy in tourneys...thats where you can actually cash. and if you do cash, take a shot at a main event sat or two just for fun!

[mshalen]

But as Milton Friedman said when asked about the illogic of people playing lotterys with such bad odds he responded "yes but for just $1 you can change your life".

[ethan]

[ QUOTE ]
Next point of theory. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm a hell of a lot better at MTTs than I am at Sats. I'm also a hell of a lot more comfortable playing with a standard prize pool distribution than I am with a winner take all tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true for a lot of the people in the sats, and it's often true despite their not being particularly good in cash-prize MTTs. A "good" satellite player may well have a better EV in those tournaments than a "good" cash-MTT player would have in his specialty, simply because the average player is (I think) weaker in satellite play. Also, if the site running the satellite pays cash for every seat you win past the first this can become very profitable.

You do have a reasonable point in most of this - I'd personally much rather have $8K than a WSOP seat. But for some people the satellites offer excellent value.

[SoBeDude]

I'm going anyway, and one way or the other. I've already rented a condo for a month in Vegas. I'm playing in the big dance. So winning a seat is a significant goal.

-Scott

[CardSharpCook]

I am going as well. But I am still thinking about how I want to spend my money when there. Do I really want to spend 10K on the main event? Right now I'm considering getting there on the 29th, playing one Razz, one Limit, and one NL tourney for a total buy-in of $7500. That would be 3 tourneys that allow me to play with a different set of poker skills each time. My chances of making the money are trippled and I am also more likely to get a seat next to a pro, which is also a dream.

I am also considering whether or not I want to start investing in these sats. Reason does restrain me, first, I'm not the kind of person that can try a few times and then give up - if I decide to win a seat, I will - it is just a question of how much it will cost me. And second, well, alll the reasons I listed in the first pot.

Anyway, I hope to see some of you at the WSOP. I'm sure a WSOP thread will open up in May and we can all share our plans then.

Thanks for your responses here - I must still invest thought into this.

May we all have luck in our WSOP dreams,
CSC

[chopchoi]

If I won $11K, I wouldn't be able to play in the WSOP because my wife would want half of it, but she can't ask for half of my seat if I win it, so satelites make sense to me.

[Rick Diesel]

I, personally, play MUCH better in satellites than I do in MTTs. However I am working hard on my MTT game, and as a reward to myself for a good year I would like to play the main event of the WSOP. Had my best week ever this past week going a ridiculous 11/19 in Stars single table ($29) satellites to the $215. I plan on playing in a few of the Stars DS satellites to the main event, because I am sure that is the best way for me to win a seat.

Rick Diesel

[Punker]

The difference is that in satellite play, the payouts are structured in a much more all or nothing way. For example, if you play a 100+9 on party with, say, 400 people, there will be 40K in the prize pool. According to their payout structure, first place will be 10K, everything else lower than that.

Now play a 100+9 satellite with 400 people. There will be 3-4 seats for the top finishers (but of course nothing if you finish 6th or so)...

Thats why people play satellites instead of just trying to accumulate the cash. You can get it all done in one shot much easier due to the hyper sharp payout structure.

[jg22]

[ QUOTE ]
I, personally, play MUCH better in satellites than I do in MTTs. However I am working hard on my MTT game, and as a reward to myself for a good year I would like to play the main event of the WSOP. Had my best week ever this past week going a ridiculous 11/19 in Stars single table ($29) satellites to the $215. I plan on playing in a few of the Stars DS satellites to the main event, because I am sure that is the best way for me to win a seat.

Rick Diesel

[/ QUOTE ]

I am exactly the same way as you, Rick. I dont know why but I do far better in sats than I do in cash tournaments. I really dont know why. Maybe I am just not that good a cash tournament player but do better against the fish in the sats. Ive probably played about 35 sats on Party and won seats from maybe 9 of them (3 200k, 3 1/4 mil, 3 super weekday, I think those are pretty good results). But I never have those results in the major cash tournaments where I am lucky to get the bottom rung of the prize pool.

Any ideas why? Id love to be a much better major MTT player. I think my problem is that I play $20+2 SnGs profitably and apply my play in those to the MTT which just isnt correct. For instance blind stealing is much easier in an SnG. Maybe its bad luck on my part, but I always seem to win the blinds when I have a monster in the MTT, and get played back at when I am on a pure steal, even though I think I am raising the same amounts.

Just the other day, I easily got 56k chips in a 200k satelite, won a spot obviously, but I can never seem to get so many chips in the regular tournaments..

[MLG]

well, that and the fact that they are much much softer than a comparable sized money tournament. IMHO.

[Rick Diesel]

I think in satellites, particularly single tables, most opponents press way too hard early. I have success just waiting for that monster, and it just seems like someone is always there to pay it off. In MTTs it seems that I wait for that monster, but I just don't seem to play it correctly to get paid off (see my post from this past Sunday's tournament).

[JohnFR]

I thought the same thing, until I started playing the $29 sats on PS, I then realized that a better player always has more +EV in a satellite than in a cash tourney. And here is the reason. A good player makes it to the money let's say 60% of the time(I have heard of good SnG players doing this), but the thing is a truly good SnG player WINS the whole thing half of the time they make the money or so. Now let's assume that the prize pool all goes to first(satellite) that means 30% of the time you get all the entry fees, let's pretend it cost $10 for the satellite and $10 for the cash SnG. So 30% of the time you get $100, 10 tourneys, $300 dollars, now let's go to the case of cash tourneys you get 50% 3 times, 30% 2 times and 20% 1 time, this adds up to $230 dollars. So a good SnG player would be better off playing satellites, if he can get a 1 to 1 transfer of the money, which isn't terribly hard because you can just take the tourney dollars and turn them into cash in a normal SnG. The same could be extrapolated to multi sat events. If you are assuming a $100 buy in tourney all you need is 100 people to have a seat. If it had a flat payout schedule you would end up with $2500 for first, 1250 or so for second and so on, and it would pay the final table. Therefore to win $10k in a 100 person event you would probably have to make it to the final table somewhere between 15-20 times, if your average finish was around 3rd which is probably about right for a multi-table tourney in which you make the final table. So in order to raise $10k using 100 buy-in events with the same amount of people that a satellite that pays out to 1 person, you would have to make the final table probably around 20 times. I think my ability to win a 100 person tourney 1 time, is much higher than making 20 final tables in 100 player tourneys.

If my math is wrong somebody please tell me. And don't hold it against me, I am very tired.

[TripleQ]

1 - more fish (see feeder sats)

2 - overlay (free hotel room for 9 days)

3 - play is completely different. Sat play favours the weak/tight player. There is a greater tendency to play more conservatively, seeing as you're not aiming for 1st but simply to place. I believe this is a big difference... play will not be as aggressive against you, and you'll be able to bully more particularly as you near the bubble. You won't often find a runaway chip leader.. once someone has made a decent stack, they're going to protect it, not take liberal risks with it.

[MLG]

[ QUOTE ]
3 - play is completely different. Sat play favours the weak/tight player. There is a greater tendency to play more conservatively, seeing as you're not aiming for 1st but simply to place. I believe this is a big difference... play will not be as aggressive against you, and you'll be able to bully more particularly as you near the bubble. You won't often find a runaway chip leader.. once someone has made a decent stack, they're going to protect it, not take liberal risks with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Booo. Unfortunately for me, completely correct. I'd be a great sat player on a heavy dose of downers.

[TripleQ]

heh, what would you rather win, satellites or cash tourneys? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[SteveL91]

The big thing I think you're ignoring is that you can play the satellites for no cash outlay at certain sites. I don't really play tournaments ( though, I'm going to start giving them more thought) and I don't play much NL. But, pokerstars offers a lot of satellites where the buy-in is strictly paid using frequently player points. Since I'm not doing anything else with them, I may as well use them on the satellites.

[ryachris]

You have to consider that your opponents are much more likely to sit on a 2-3x Ave stack in a Sat than in a real tournament. making it easier to accumulate if you steal blinds etc.

[sloth469]

Which online sats does this happen in? Not my experience in the stars turbos at all.

[yecul]

Well how about this one... I'm relatively new to everything and tried out a $5.5 rebuy tourney and placed to get a $160 seat at the double S&G on P*. I unregistered b/c the start was later than I wanted.

Should I go ahead and enter for the chance at the WSOP seat or skip it and use the tourney dollars for regular MTTs and the like? Seems like the latter would be certainly be a sound idea, but the former would be more for fun I guess..

Edit -- It should be noted that my newbieness means that I'm not entirely sure if this is even possible...

[TripleQ]

The money you win in WSOP sats ($W) can only be used towards WSOP tourneys (or WPT, or other special events), not regular ones. For normal tourneys (SNG, MTT) you need $T.

[Bernas]

[ QUOTE ]
heh, what would you rather win, satellites or cash tourneys? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The cash tourney that I won my way into via the satellite. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[yecul]

Well, there you go, guess I'll be going for the WSOP seat after all. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[jg22]

[ QUOTE ]
You have to consider that your opponents are much more likely to sit on a 2-3x Ave stack in a Sat than in a real tournament. making it easier to accumulate if you steal blinds etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a good point, but what I find more often in the sats is that they are much more willing to pay off my big hands, while it seems harder to get paid off in the money tournaments.