Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]

And anyways, for the player with a $200k BR, yeah, playing the smaller sats might be a good idea if he's got good EV in them, but assuming he's not going to sell his seat, his variance WILL NOT decrease by playing $250 sats over $250 MTTs. He's not MAKING $2500 each time he wins. I'm not too up on expectations on these things, but i'll assume he's at least a pretty good winner and qualifies 1/6. So on average, he'll spend $1500 to get into the $2500 event. So you could say he ahs a pretty good EV in the sats, but the thing is, its still no different than him buying into the big tourney for a discounted $1500. Now, how is it that a $1500 MTT can have less variance than a $250 MTT.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is the only part you are getting wrong. Winning a seat is the no different from winning cash to him because he is going to buy in anyway. Winning a $2500 seat by investing $1500 in satellites is exactly equivalent to winning $2500 cash by playing $1500 worth of lower buyin multis (assuming these are his expectation in each).

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]

Say your BR is 100k. if you played only $250 sats into bigger events, your risk of ruin would be WAY higher than if you played only $250 MTTs with their 100k BR.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the risk of ruin of playing

A. $250's most of the time and enough $250 satellites to get into all the bigger events is lower than

B. $250 buyins most of the time and also bought in directly to as many 2500 events as you could have satellited into.

Notice that if you assume playing the same hours, the difference betwen A and B is that some of the $250 buyins in B are replaced by $250 satellites in A.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
Notice that if you assume playing the same hours, the difference betwen A and B is that some of the $250 buyins in B are replaced by $250 satellites in A.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well. but I think its debatable who needs more BR for this example. b/c if on average you're playing 6 $250 sats per week (say the $2500 is weekly) instead of 6 $250 MTTs, then yes, you'll reduce the amount you spend per week slightly b/c you'll only be paying $1500 for the big ones each week. however, you'll also be missing out on a lot of pretty good cashes in the $250 MTTs. Those good sized scores will help a lot in terms of evening out your swings.

I mean if i said you only had time for 7 tourneys a week, on average, I think you'd need a bigger bankroll to play an average of 6 sats plus the big event than you would to play 6 $250 tourneys and just buyin to the $2500 tourney.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

Bankroll management is teh suck. I love living on the edge.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

Don't analyze him to find his weaknesses. Justin is a great player and everyone knows that. Poker will be poker. Are you saying Phil Ivey or Daniel Negreanu would be a losing player if you took out their wins? MTT are for the big scores, how can you say he got lucky this past Sunday? You make the smart plays, you get rewarded, easy as that. So in essence, if Justin wouldn't have won, then everyone else above him got lucky....I don't think so. I think too many people look at poker for luck.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
Don't analyze him to find his weaknesses. Justin is a great player and everyone knows that. Poker will be poker. Are you saying Phil Ivey or Daniel Negreanu would be a losing player if you took out their wins? MTT are for the big scores, how can you say he got lucky this past Sunday? You make the smart plays, you get rewarded, easy as that. So in essence, if Justin wouldn't have won, then everyone else above him got lucky....I don't think so. I think too many people look at poker for luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh. Can't a mod lock this thread before even more people who didn't read OP's post reply?

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
Don't analyze him to find his weaknesses. Justin is a great player and everyone knows that. Poker will be poker. Are you saying Phil Ivey or Daniel Negreanu would be a losing player if you took out their wins? MTT are for the big scores, how can you say he got lucky this past Sunday? You make the smart plays, you get rewarded, easy as that. So in essence, if Justin wouldn't have won, then everyone else above him got lucky....I don't think so. I think too many people look at poker for luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you graduated high school? Understand reading comprehension much?

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

The only problem is that you show Justin's results after he won. If you show the results of a random player (who could also have won recently... or not!) then this type of analysis make more sense.

Why you don't have any information on other websites??? They don't want to share, too much work???

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
Don't analyze him to find his weaknesses. Justin is a great player and everyone knows that. Poker will be poker. Are you saying Phil Ivey or Daniel Negreanu would be a losing player if you took out their wins? MTT are for the big scores, how can you say he got lucky this past Sunday? You make the smart plays, you get rewarded, easy as that. So in essence, if Justin wouldn't have won, then everyone else above him got lucky....I don't think so. I think too many people look at poker for luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree, but the problem is you forgot to carry the two in your second calculation. If you did that, then you'd see that he made the right play coming over the top with AQss in the third hour.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't analyze him to find his weaknesses. Justin is a great player and everyone knows that. Poker will be poker. Are you saying Phil Ivey or Daniel Negreanu would be a losing player if you took out their wins? MTT are for the big scores, how can you say he got lucky this past Sunday? You make the smart plays, you get rewarded, easy as that. So in essence, if Justin wouldn't have won, then everyone else above him got lucky....I don't think so. I think too many people look at poker for luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree, but the problem is you forgot to carry the two in your second calculation. If you did that, then you'd see that he made the right play coming over the top with AQss in the third hour.

[/ QUOTE ]


I disagree completely. That reraise with AQss was ridiculous. The fact is, ZeeJustin had a healthy stack when that hand occured and was competely unjustified in taking such a gigantic risk. When a tight, early position player who has nearly as many chips as you do raises 1/3 of their stack, AQss is an extremely marginal hand to play, and reraising assuming he had fold equity was a pretty terrible play by Justin. Of course, we all know what happened that hand... unreal.