Re: My WSOP satelitte theory
 

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.

Re: My WSOP satelitte theory
 

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

Re: My WSOP satelitte theory
 

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.

Re: My WSOP satelitte theory
 

[ 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..

Re: My WSOP satelitte theory
 

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

Re: My WSOP satelitte theory
 

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).

Re: My WSOP satelitte theory
 

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.

Re: My WSOP satelitte theory
 

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.

Re: My WSOP satelitte theory
 

[ 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.

Re: My WSOP satelitte theory
 

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