[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point is that buying into $250 MTTs has lower variance than the $250 sats. this is certainly true. think about it some before misreading something i said in order to be able to disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

What?


and

[ QUOTE ]

To me, when tournament A requires a BR of 7 or 8 times the BR needed for tournament B... its pretty safe to say that tourney A has more variance than tourney B

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe i'm wrong, but this seems like a really bad comparison. Just because a tournament is 7 or 8x more expensive, does not mean it has 7 or 8x the variance. The variance is the same (measure in terms of buyins, not dollars).

[/ QUOTE ]

What he's saying is that if you are only rolled for the 200's, playing $200 satellites increases your variance because the prize forces you to play over your bankroll. That is, a ticket to a $2500 is not equivalent to cash to someone with $25000; it is significantly riskier than cash that he could wager at the proper levels. You are right that playing a higher buyin might have the same variance relative to the buyin (the roll for 2500's might just be a matter of scale compared to the roll for 200's), but relative to the bankroll of the player who is rolled for 200's, the variance per dollar of bankroll is obviously much higher. If you have 25000 and play events that you need 200000 for, you will experience greater variance in your bankroll than someone with 200000. This is common knowledge. Phrasing must be throwing you off.

This doesn't conflict with what I am saying and I can't figure why he thinks it does.