[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
You are misunderstanding me. I agree that expectation in a satellite should be measured and compared in $ terms to expectation in other games. Because clearly, if you can get the cash more efficiently in another game, you should. And whether entering a satellite to an MTT is a good idea is in large part dependent on whether you have the bankroll for the larger event, since the value of the tickets should be thought of as a portion of your cash bankroll and you shouldn't devote a large portion of your bankroll to a single event. I could go on but I think you did a fine job with this. Let's just say I agree.

What I'm arguing is something much simpler:

Take two tournaments, same buyin, same field size (for the sake of controls on the argument assume field size is constant), that pay ten percent of the field.

One is a standard $250 MTT. The other is a $250 supersatellite where 10% wins seats to a $2500. The second clearly has lower variance, assuming a player is equally skilled at both formats. If a player wants to play 1000 $250 tourneys and use the proceeds to play as many $2500 tourneys as he can afford, playing satellites will be a lower variance way of winning the same (expected) number of seats, and therefore a lower variance way of experiencing his overall expected return. To be clear I am talking about MTT-style supersatellites that pay 10% of the field, not something like a double shootout which pays 1 in 81 or a MTT supersat that pays 1 in 50 like a $300 sat to a WS package.

[/ QUOTE ]


i'm pretty sure this is not true. if you're playing to qualify for a larger, $2500 tourney, then your variance in that MTT is going to be way larger, b/c the variance in the $2500 event is enormous. Maybe on average you only spend $12-1500 in sats to qualify, but then a $12-1500 tourney would probably be above your BR (if you're a $250 MTT player)

The only way it reduces variance is if you had the BR ,and were planning on probably buying in anyways (or at least considering buying in). then playing the sats would of course be lower variance than buying directly into the big event.

The exception of course would be if you're able to sell your buyin, and were just playing the sats to win $$.