My WSOP satelitte theory
 

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

Re: My WSOP satelitte theory
 

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.

Re: My WSOP satelitte theory
 

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

Re: My WSOP satelitte theory
 

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 [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: My WSOP satelitte theory
 

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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: My WSOP satelitte theory
 

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!

Re: My WSOP satelitte theory
 

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".

Re: My WSOP satelitte theory
 

[ 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.

Re: My WSOP satelitte theory
 

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

Re: My WSOP satelitte theory
 

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