[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
You are misunderstanding me. I agree that expectation isn 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, 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 ]

If you feel that type of lower variance payout suits your game, then you should play them just because they suit you... not because it allows you to lower your cost of entry. I'd never argue people shouldn't play satellites -- but they should only play them if that's the best place to "invest" their $ at that time.