[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
Zee: He's not talking about satellites. There is NOTHING to be ashamed of. I have your data in front of me too from the site, and wow, you play almost every big buy in tournament on the site. So uh yeah, you didn't ever win the 500k before this, that means nothing. You are a good player because you make good decisions etc etc, it doesn't really matter what specific results you have over a small sample size. N 82 is NOT saying that this is your true ROI, or that before yesterday your true ROI was less or anything like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the main message in this post and the couple of others like it. But I think Zee's mention of satellites is worth considering because the main thing everyone is getting from this data is a confirmation that MTT's with large fields are a very high-variance form of poker. Playing satellites reduces that variance by providing the flattest possible prize pool (I'm talking here about sats where 10% get a seat, not 2% like the big 10K buyin sats.) and allowing a skilled player to reduce his average cost of entry to the tournaments with cash prizes without much risk. There is an opportunity cost for the time spent if you play in lower buyin satellites than your bankroll would allow, and satelliting in to buyins over your roll may not be a great idea, but they do reduce variance if used properly.