Satellite to a satellite? How good does one need to be?

[offTopic]

Local cardroom is having the following promotion:

Every week for 10 weeks, 10 players pay $120 for a no-limit freezeout.

In week 11, the 10 winners (no duplicate winners allowed) play a no-limit freezeout, and the winner gets a buyin at the WSOP main event.

How much of an advantage over the field must a given player possess for this to be an overlay situation? Or, would it never be an overlay, given the juice?

TIA

[metaname]

Well I don't know how you would quantify the needed "betterness" to answer this, I suppose you would have to have a 1.2% chance of winning.

The real answer will depend on the structue of the sattelite, most of these have such a "fast" stucture as to make them basically crapshoots. In this case I doubt anyone could overcome the rake unless the field was terrible.

MN

[Greg (FossilMan)]

20% vig means you need to have a greater than 20% edge over the field, I believe. The fact that you play 2 satellites is largely irrelevant to the math. No matter how you cut it, you need to beat 99 players to win.

The only reason this is different than a regular tournament is which skills this one accentuates as compared to a regular 100 player event. However, you need to be >20% better than the field for the relevant skill set.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[offTopic]

20% vig means you need to have a greater than 20% edge over the field, I believe. The fact that you play 2 satellites is largely irrelevant to the math. No matter how you cut it, you need to beat 99 players to win.

Thanks for the info, Greg. (...and thanks for not going Razzo-esque and saying you only need to beat 18! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif )

Think I'll save the $120 for a 3-6 buyin...I at least think I'll have an advantage there.